On Tue, 29 May 2018 16:13:49 +0200 Christophe LEROY <christophe.le...@c-s.fr> wrote:
> Le 28/05/2018 à 15:19, Michal Suchanek a écrit : > > We now have barrier_nospec as mitigation so print it in > > cpu_show_spectre_v1 when enabled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msucha...@suse.de> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c | 5 ++++- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c > > b/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c index 0239383c7e4d..a0c32d53980b > > 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c > > @@ -120,7 +120,10 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_spectre_v1(struct device > > *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, c if > > (!security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_BNDS_CHK_SPEC_BAR)) return > > sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n"); > > - return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n"); > > + if (barrier_nospec_enabled) > > > + return sprintf(buf, "Mitigation: __user pointer > > sanitization\n"); > > + else > > + return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n"); > > Checkpatch would tell you that an else is unneeded after a return. So > just leave it as it was before. Where did you get your copy of checkpatch? The one in Linux tree does not do that. Thanks Michal
