Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:54:44 -0400 | From | Rich Felker <> | Subject | Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions? |
| |
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 09:20:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On 07/16/2018 09:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > At least the Centerton (late-generation Bonnell uarch) Atom > > > > > family is > > > > > omitted from the cpu_no_speculation table added by commit > > > > > fec9434a12f3 > > > > > to arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c. Is this intentional? Would a > > > > > patch > > > > > adding it and possibly other omissions be welcome? > > > > > > > > Probably. Dave? > > > > > > IIRC, Alan Cox was compiling a list on what is affected vs. not. He > > > would know way better than I. > > > > The pre Silvermont atom cores are in order. When I did the original > > list I didn't bother with all the 32bit cores as we didn't have any > > 32bit mitigations then. > > At least we should give the users that warm and fuzzy feeling that they are > not affected.
It's not just fuzzies -- my box was actually affected by slowdown for mitigation without adding "nopti" to boot command line, which is rather unfortunate when you're running a severely-slower box already for the sake of not being affected by these vulnerabilities.
Since Dave asked, mine is a Centerton as I originally mentioned, Atom S1260, which seems to be the fastest in-order Intel chip with boards still commercially available. I'm not sure if there are other omissions that are actually interesting. I have several other Atoms too, but I think all of those are covered by the existing table.
Rich
| |