lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] driver core: cpu: Unify redundant silly stubs
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 12:26:59PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@alien8.de>
>
> Make them all a weak function, aliasing to a single function which
> issues the "Not affected" string.
>
> No functional changes.
>
> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@alien8.de>
> ---
> drivers/base/cpu.c | 86 ++++++++++------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c
> index 52df435eecf8..971771347aa6 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c
> @@ -509,79 +509,29 @@ static void __init cpu_dev_register_generic(void)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_VULNERABILITIES
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_meltdown(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_spectre_v1(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_spectre_v2(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_spec_store_bypass(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_l1tf(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_mds(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_tsx_async_abort(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr,
> - char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_itlb_multihit(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_srbds(struct device *dev,
> +ssize_t cpu_show_not_affected(struct device *dev,
> struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> {
> return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> }
>
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_mmio_stale_data(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_retbleed(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> -
> -ssize_t __weak cpu_show_spec_rstack_overflow(struct device *dev,
> - struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> -{
> - return sysfs_emit(buf, "Not affected\n");
> -}
> +#define CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(func) \

Nit, its not actually a vulnerability fallback, does
CPU_SHOW_VULN_FALLBACK() sound better?

> + ssize_t cpu_show_##func(struct device *, \
> + struct device_attribute *, char *) \
> + __attribute__((weak, alias("cpu_show_not_affected")))
> +
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(meltdown);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(spectre_v1);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(spectre_v2);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(spec_store_bypass);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(l1tf);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(mds);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(tsx_async_abort);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(itlb_multihit);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(srbds);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(mmio_stale_data);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(retbleed);
> +CPU_VULN_FALLBACK(spec_rstack_overflow);
>
> ssize_t __weak cpu_show_gds(struct device *dev,
> struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)

Do you want me to send a separate patch for this?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-09 23:50    [W:0.171 / U:2.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site