Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Thank you. I think we ought to demand a product recall for everything Intel. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

AFAIK AMD processors that don't need that are from Zen onwards. Older ones are impacted. -Alberto On 08/01/2018 12:27, Nick Lowe wrote: Hi Kevin, I am not following :-) For AMD, there should not be a tradeoff as there is no need for the page table isolation. Regards, Nick On Mon, Jan 8,

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Sorry, it was back ported to 4.9.75 :-) On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Nick Lowe wrote: > It looks like PCID and INVPCID support is likely to be back ported to > the 4.9.76 Linux Kernel: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10143225/

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

It looks like PCID and INVPCID support is likely to be back ported to the 4.9.76 Linux Kernel: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10143225/ ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Hi all, I am a moron, I missed: +skip: + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) + goto disable; It uses a different path... Regards, NIck On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Nick Lowe wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > I am not following :-) For AMD, there should not be a

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Hi Kevin, I am not following :-) For AMD, there should not be a tradeoff as there is no need for the page table isolation. Regards, Nick On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: > > >> On 8 Jan 2018, at 11:12, Nick Lowe

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

> On 8 Jan 2018, at 11:12, Nick Lowe wrote: > > Agreed. So this will seemingly regress something like an APU2 and > therefore probably should not be merged to LEDE as-is? I’ll let an adult decide the performance/security tradeoff. signature.asc Description: Message

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Citeren Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant : On 8 Jan 2018, at 11:04, Nick Lowe wrote: Hi, Where in 4.9.75 does it avoid the page table isolation mitigation for AMD? Committed to the 4.14 and 4.15 branch is:

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Agreed. So this will seemingly regress something like an APU2 and therefore probably should not be merged to LEDE as-is? Nick On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant wrote: > > >> On 8 Jan 2018, at 11:04, Nick Lowe wrote: >>

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

> On 8 Jan 2018, at 11:04, Nick Lowe wrote: > > Hi, > > Where in 4.9.75 does it avoid the page table isolation mitigation for AMD? > > Committed to the 4.14 and 4.15 branch is: > >

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Hi, Where in 4.9.75 does it avoid the page table isolation mitigation for AMD? Committed to the 4.14 and 4.15 branch is: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v4.15-rc7=694d99d40972f12e59a3696effee8a376b79d7c8 X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE becomes

Re: [LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Tested-by: Koen Vandeputte Targets: cns3xxx, imx6 ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev

[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v1] kernel: bump 4.9 to 4.9.75

Refresh patches Fixes: CVE-2017-5754 aka Meltdown Tested-on: ar71xx Archer C7 v2 Signed-off-by: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant --- include/kernel-version.mk| 4 ++-- ...sb-xhci-add-firmware-loader-for-uPD720201-and-uPD72.patch | 6