lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 5/7] x86/pti: Do not enable PTI on processors which are not vulnerable to Meltdown
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:14:13PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Also, for CPUs which don't speculate at all, don't report that they're
> vulnerable to the Spectre variants either.
>
> Leave the cpu_no_meltdown[] match table with just X86_VENDOR_AMD in it
> for now, even though that could be done with a simple comparison, on the
> assumption that we'll have more to add.
>
> Based on suggestions from Dave Hansen and Alan Cox.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> index e5d66e9..32650c7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@
> #include <asm/pat.h>
> #include <asm/microcode.h>
> #include <asm/microcode_intel.h>
> +#include <asm/intel-family.h>
> +#include <asm/cpu_device_id.h>
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> #include <asm/uv/uv.h>
> @@ -853,6 +855,41 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> #endif
> }
>
> +static const __initdata struct x86_cpu_id cpu_no_speculation[] = {
> + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_CEDARVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_CLOVERVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_LINCROFT, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_PENWELL, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_PINEVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> + { X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR, 5 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 5 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_NSC, 5 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_ANY, 4 },

You probably wanna retab that one vertically too.

Other than that, looks ok to me.

Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-25 23:01    [W:0.120 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site