linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for missing mitigation

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: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:05:47 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for missing
 mitigation

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:58:21PM -0800, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 09:32:12AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > +config MITIGATION_RETBLEED
> > +	bool "Mitigate RETBleed hardware bug"
> > +	depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL || (CPU_SUP_AMD && MITIGATION_UNRET_ENTRY)
> 
> Atleast on Intel CPUs, Retbleed mitigation is meaningless without
> spectre-v2 being mitigated, shouldn't this depend on MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V2?

I suppose it is the same for AMD, right?

So, I suppose it should be something as:

	depends on (MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V2 && (CPU_SUP_INTEL || (CPU_SUP_AMD && MITIGATION_UNRET_ENTRY))

Is this better?

Thanks!