[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ff867b7-e5b1-4b91-87cf-127b2e908025@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 16:54:43 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.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 16:50, Daniel Sneddon wrote:
> 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..... 🙁
Heh, I went looking just after I asked. These CPUs are ghosts as far as
the docs are concerned. I assume because they are end-of-life'd (or
whatever the proper name is). But even saying _that_ in the changelog
would be helpful.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists