[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dc28f36b-87fa-4aac-8578-6468ae311b16@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:50:11 -0700
From: Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Add missing NO_SSB flag
On 8/28/24 16:36, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/28/24 15:40, Daniel Sneddon wrote:
>> The Moorefield and Lightning Mountain Atom processors are
>> missing the NO_SSB flag in the vulnerabilities whitelist.
>> This will cause unaffected parts to incorrectly be reported
>> as vulnerable. Add the missing flag.
>
> It'd be really cool to add two things to these changelogs: First, who
> figured this out and how? Basically, who cares and why? Second, what
> public Intel documentation supports this change?
The first thing I can do no problem. The second..... :(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists