Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2023 14:47:41 -0700 | From | Pawan Gupta <> | Subject | Re: [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?
| |