[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8538c0b5-fde8-4e54-be91-24bcfb31c7ab@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 17:01:19 -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 16:54, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.
Will do!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists