linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD: Make sure EFER[AIBRSE] is set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 25 Feb 2023 15:43:30 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD: Make sure EFER[AIBRSE] is set

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:56:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 09:28:32AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > All the other "bug" code in identify_secondary_cpu() *is*
> > vendor-specific.
> 
> I meant "vendor-specific" in the sense that AMD code goes to amd.c, etc.

Hm?  So code in bugs.c is not vendor-specific?  That seems circular and
I don't get your point.

> As to the identify_secondary_cpu()  code - I didn't like it being
> slapped there either but it got stuck in there hastily during the
> mitigations upstreaming as back then we had bigger fish to fry than
> paying too much attention to clean design...

Right, so rather than spreading all the bug-related MSR logic around,
just do it in one spot.

-- 
Josh