Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:06:53 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is |
| |
On Tue 2018-01-09 00:44:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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.
Ok, is there better time now? The code is a bit confusing... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |