[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250210233624.aj4tmhzhryx5jkmd@jpoimboe>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:36:24 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: David Kaplan <david.kaplan@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/35] x86/bugs: Restructure rfds mitigation
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 02:24:47PM -0600, David Kaplan wrote:
> @@ -627,11 +630,28 @@ static void __init rfds_select_mitigation(void)
>
> if (rfds_mitigation == RFDS_MITIGATION_AUTO)
> rfds_mitigation = RFDS_MITIGATION_VERW;
Another superfluous return above this one.
> +static void __init rfds_apply_mitigation(void)
> +{
> + if (rfds_mitigation == RFDS_MITIGATION_VERW)
> setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_CPU_BUF);
> - else
> - rfds_mitigation = RFDS_MITIGATION_UCODE_NEEDED;
Hm, unlike the other VERW mitigations, this doesn't even attempt to do
VERW on missing ucode.
Ah well, it was already like that and I doubt anybody cares at this
point.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists