On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:32:26AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> No because cpuinfo should be information about the CPU.
That argument doesn't work in this case because we're already lying
there. Otherwise we would've never had the synthetic features in the
first place.
If you *really* wanna kn
On Sat, 2018-01-27 at 10:37 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 09:27:48AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > http://david.woodhou.se/cleanup-feature-bits.patch on top of my full
> > tree?
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ static inline void
> indirect_branch_prediction_barrier(void)
>
On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 09:27:48AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> http://david.woodhou.se/cleanup-feature-bits.patch on top of my full
> tree?
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ static inline void indirect_branch_prediction_barrier(void)
"movl %[val], %%eax\n\t"
http://david.woodhou.se/cleanup-feature-bits.patch on top of my full
tree?
I'll rework that into the series instead of as a patch on top...
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 17:14 -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 1/26/2018 4:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:59:44PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > If we wanted to do this kind of thing, we'd do it the other way round.
> > > Turn the *Intel* feature into bot
On 1/26/2018 4:10 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:59:44PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> If we wanted to do this kind of thing, we'd do it the other way round.
>> Turn the *Intel* feature into both 'IBRS' and 'IBPB' CPU-visible
>> features, and have those defined in the AM
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:59:44PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> If we wanted to do this kind of thing, we'd do it the other way round.
> Turn the *Intel* feature into both 'IBRS' and 'IBPB' CPU-visible
> features, and have those defined in the AMD word.
You lost me here: have those defined in t
On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 22:52 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 03:06:20PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >
> > So I like the idea of AMD_IBRS/AMD_IBPB/AMD_STIBP and then use the magic
> > quotes as appropriate. We could probably use the magic quotes on
> > AMD_STIBP and set X86
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 03:06:20PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> So I like the idea of AMD_IBRS/AMD_IBPB/AMD_STIBP and then use the magic
> quotes as appropriate. We could probably use the magic quotes on
> AMD_STIBP and set X86_FEATURE_STIBP when we see X86_FEATURE_AMD_STIBP.
Like this?
We set t
On 1/26/2018 12:49 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 06:45:18PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 19:41 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> +#define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB (13*32+12) /* "" Indirect Branch
>>> Prediction Barrier MSR */
>>
>> Stray quote
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 06:45:18PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 19:41 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > +#define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB (13*32+12) /* "" Indirect Branch
> > Prediction Barrier MSR */
>
> Stray quotes.
No no, those quotes are magical. :)
They don'
On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 19:41 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> +#define X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB (13*32+12) /* "" Indirect Branch
> Prediction Barrier MSR */
Stray quotes.
> +#define X86_FEATURE_IBRS (13*32+14) /* Indirect Branch
> Restricted Speculation */
Please don't call i
v
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:07:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] x86/cpufeatures: Cleanup AMD speculation feature bits
X86_FEATURE_AMD_PRED_CMD -> X86_FEATURE_AMD_IBPB
That is the preferred name. Also, hide it in /proc/cpuinfo as we're
setting a vendor-agnostic X86_FEATURE_IBPB one.
X86_FEATUR
13 matches
Mail list logo
