Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:00:39 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |