Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-03-04 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 03:01:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Not "might be needed" - "X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E will be set if platform is > > affected". > > That's not what Thomas was explaining to me. It is in the comment he pasted: * Check whether the machine is affected by erratum 4

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-03-04 Thread Pavel Machek
On Sun 2018-03-04 10:29:18, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 09:51:59AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > index f41079d..4901742 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > +++ b/a

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-03-04 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 09:51:59AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > index f41079d..4901742 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ > #def

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-03-04 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and > > > > > > X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E > > > > > > ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention > > > > > > that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_I

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-03-03 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2018-01-09 00:44:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > On Mon 2018-01-08 21:27:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, what is going o

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-03-03 Thread Pavel Machek
On Tue 2018-01-09 00:44:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Mon 2018-01-08 21:27:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E > > > >

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-01-08 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2018-01-08 21:27:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E > > > ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should menti

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-01-08 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2018-01-08 21:27:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E > > ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention > > that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?) > >

Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-01-08 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote: > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E > ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention > that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?) > > Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE is a bit too generic? This se

[PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

2018-01-08 Thread Pavel Machek
First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?) Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE is a bit too generic? This seems to address "Meltdown" problem, but not "Spectre".