[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230809145153.cl7gys2ddagecbuf@treble>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:51:53 -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 04:43:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> semi-colon then, instead of comma ?
Nm, I was confused. Comma is fine.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists