Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 9 Jan 2018 00:44:30 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is |
| |
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2018-01-08 21:27:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E > > > ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention > > > that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?) > > > > > > Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE is a bit too generic? This seems to > > > address "Meltdown" problem, but not "Spectre". Should it be limited to > > > PPro and newer Intel CPUs? > > > > > > Should another erratum be added for "Spectre"? This is present even on > > > AMD CPUs, but should not be present in 486, maybe Pentium, and some > > > Atom chips? > > > > > > Plus... is this reasonable interface? > > > > > > bugs : cpu_insecure > > > > We've renamed it to meltdown already and added spectre_v1/v2 bits for the > > rest of the mess. > > Could you explain (best with code comment) what is going on with > X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E ? They seem to refer to the > same bug.
Sorry, that;s really not the time for this.
> Plus, as I explained: "bugs: meltdown, spectre" seems to be bad idea, > as userland application can not easily tell between "no bug" and "bug > not known to kernel".
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180107214913.096657732@linutronix.de https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180107214913.177414879@linutronix.de
Thanks,
tglx
|  |