On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 10:42 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 09:23:07AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > +static bool __init early_cpu_vulnerable_meltdown(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > +{
> > + u64 ia32_cap = 0;
> > +
> > + if (x86_match_cpu(cpu_no_meltdown))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES))
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES, ia32_cap);
>
> I think it was suggested a while back to write this like:
>
> if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_CAPABILITIES) &&
> !rdmsrl_safe(MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES, ia32_cap))
>
> to deal with funny virt scenarios where they accidentally advertise the
> CPUID bit but don't in fact provide the MSR.It was indeed suggested, but I was a bit confused by that. Because the CPUID bit exists *purely* to advertise the existence of that MSR; nothing more. If it doesn't exist we'll end up with zero in ia32_cap anyway, which will mean we *won't* see the RDCL_NO bit, and won't disable the Meltdown flag.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
