Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2023 10:51:53 -0400 | From | Josh Poimboeuf <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/17] x86/cpu: Remove all SRSO interface nonsense |
| |
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 04:43:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD && > > > boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_HYGON) > > > return sysfs_emit(buf, "Vulnerable: untrained return thunk / IBPB on non-AMD based uarch\n"); > > > > > > - return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s; SMT %s\n", retbleed_strings[retbleed_mitigation], > > > + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s; SMT %s%s\n", retbleed_strings[retbleed_mitigation], > > > !sched_smt_active() ? "disabled" : > > > spectre_v2_user_stibp == SPECTRE_V2_USER_STRICT || > > > spectre_v2_user_stibp == SPECTRE_V2_USER_STRICT_PREFERRED ? > > > - "enabled with STIBP protection" : "vulnerable"); > > > - } > > > + "enabled with STIBP protection" : "vulnerable", > > > + cpu_has_ibpb_brtype_microcode() ? "" : ", no SRSO microcode"); > > > > Hm? What does missing microcode have to do with SMT? > > semi-colon then, instead of comma ?
Nm, I was confused. Comma is fine.
-- Josh
| |