Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 May 2021 11:06:14 +1000 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Next revision of the L1D flush patches |
| |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:24:16AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26 2021 at 10:31, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 08 2021 at 13:23, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > >> I'd still really like to see this -- it's a big hammer, but that's the > >> point for cases where some new flaw appears and we can point to the > >> toolbox and say "you can mitigate it with this while you wait for new > >> kernel/CPU." > >> > >> Any further thoughts from x86 maintainers? This seems like it addressed > >> all of tglx's review comments. > > > > Sorry for dropping the ball on this. It's in my list of things to deal > > with. Starting to look at it now. > > So I went through the pile and for remorse I sat down and made the > tweaks I think are necessary myself. > > I've pushed out the result to > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/devel.git x86/l1dflush >
Thank you I'll take a look and test it.
> The only thing I did not address yet is that the documentation lacks any > mentioning of the SIGBUS mechanism which is invoked when a task which > asked for L1D flush protection ends up on a SMT sibling for whatever > reason. That's essential to have because it's part of the contract of > that prctl.
IIRC I documented it, I'll double check.
> > Balbir, can you please double check the result and prepare an updated > version from there? > > If you don't have cycles, please let me know. >
I might have some cycles for testing and re-review. Thanks for all the hard work on this
Balbir Singh.
| |