[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <h7p644ejmyef2x6jau7wonbqufrtknyifza5ey2fjmz3bqfvas@xh5olvfqktg5>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:24:38 -0700
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,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Derek Manwaring <derekmn@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/36] x86/bugs: Restructure rfds mitigation
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:39:51AM -0500, David Kaplan wrote:
> static void __init rfds_select_mitigation(void)
> {
> if (!boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_RFDS) || cpu_mitigations_off()) {
> rfds_mitigation = RFDS_MITIGATION_OFF;
> return;
> }
> - if (rfds_mitigation == RFDS_MITIGATION_OFF)
> - return;
The removal of this RFDS_MITIGATION_OFF check can cause
verw_mitigation_selected to get wrongly enabled below if it was
RFDS_MITIGATION_OFF to begin with.
I think it's only a bisection issue, that gets re-added later with
"x86/bugs: Add attack vector controls for rfds".
>
> if (rfds_mitigation == RFDS_MITIGATION_AUTO)
> rfds_mitigation = RFDS_MITIGATION_VERW;
>
> - if (x86_arch_cap_msr & ARCH_CAP_RFDS_CLEAR)
> + if (rfds_has_ucode())
> + verw_mitigation_selected = true;
> +}
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists