Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation/spectre_v2: Exclude Zhaoxin CPUs from SPECTRE_V2 | From | Tony W Wang-oc <> | Date | Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:29:45 +0800 |
| |
On 17/01/2020 01:09, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Tony, > > Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@zhaoxin.com> writes: > >> @@ -1023,6 +1023,7 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) >> #define MSBDS_ONLY BIT(5) >> #define NO_SWAPGS BIT(6) >> #define NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT BIT(7) >> +#define NO_SPECTRE_V2 BIT(8) >> >> #define VULNWL(_vendor, _family, _model, _whitelist) \ >> { X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist } >> @@ -1084,6 +1085,10 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = { >> /* FAMILY_ANY must be last, otherwise 0x0f - 0x12 matches won't work */ >> VULNWL_AMD(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), >> VULNWL_HYGON(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), >> + >> + /* Zhaoxin Family 7 */ >> + VULNWL(CENTAUR, 7, X86_MODEL_ANY, NO_SPECTRE_V2), >> + VULNWL(ZHAOXIN, 7, X86_MODEL_ANY, NO_SPECTRE_V2), >> {} >> }; >> >> @@ -1116,7 +1121,9 @@ static void __init cpu_set_bug_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) >> return; >> >> setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V1); >> - setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2); >> + >> + if (!cpu_matches(NO_SPECTRE_V2)) >> + setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2); > > That's way better. But as you might have noticed yourself this conflicts > with the other patch which excludes these machines from the SWAPGS bug. > > Granted it's a trivial conflict, but maintainers are not there to mop up > the mess others create. So the right thing here is to resend both > patches as a patch series with the conflict properly resolved. >
Sorry for this conflict. Will resend these two patches as a patch set.
Sincerely TonyWWang-oc
| |