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?) > > > > Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE is a bit too generic? This seems to > > address "Meltdown" problem, but not "Spectre". Should it be limited to > > PPro and newer Intel CPUs? > > > > Should another erratum be added for "Spectre"? This is present even on > > AMD CPUs, but should not be present in 486, maybe Pentium, and some > > Atom chips? > > > > Plus... is this reasonable interface? > > > > bugs : cpu_insecure > > We've renamed it to meltdown already and added spectre_v1/v2 bits for the > rest of the mess.
Could you explain (best with code comment) what is going on with
X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E ? They seem to refer to the
same bug.
Plus, as I explained: "bugs: meltdown, spectre" seems to be bad idea,
as userland application can not easily tell between "no bug" and "bug
not known to kernel".
Best regards,
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
