[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230809140530.bijq3asl26d2pu7u@treble>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:05:30 -0400
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David.Kaplan@....com,
Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/17] x86/cpu: Remove all SRSO interface nonsense
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:12:29AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -2607,26 +2447,26 @@ static ssize_t srbds_show_state(char *bu
> static ssize_t retbleed_show_state(char *buf)
> {
> if (retbleed_mitigation == RETBLEED_MITIGATION_UNRET ||
> + retbleed_mitigation == RETBLEED_MITIGATION_UNRET_SRSO ||
> + retbleed_mitigation == RETBLEED_MITIGATION_UNRET_SRSO_ALIAS ||
> retbleed_mitigation == RETBLEED_MITIGATION_IBPB) {
These retbleed_show_state() changes probably belong in that other patch
which adds the retbleed= cmdline options.
> +
> if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
> boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
> return sysfs_emit(buf, "Vulnerable: untrained return thunk / IBPB on non-AMD based uarch\n");
>
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s; SMT %s\n", retbleed_strings[retbleed_mitigation],
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s; SMT %s%s\n", retbleed_strings[retbleed_mitigation],
> !sched_smt_active() ? "disabled" :
> spectre_v2_user_stibp == SPECTRE_V2_USER_STRICT ||
> spectre_v2_user_stibp == SPECTRE_V2_USER_STRICT_PREFERRED ?
> - "enabled with STIBP protection" : "vulnerable");
> - }
> + "enabled with STIBP protection" : "vulnerable",
> + cpu_has_ibpb_brtype_microcode() ? "" : ", no SRSO microcode");
Hm? What does missing microcode have to do with SMT?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists