From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] x86/pti: Do not enable PTI on fixed Intel processors
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:25:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1516811127.13558.150.camel@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180123173312.1d8cf02f@alans-desktop>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4428 bytes --]
On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 18:45 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:52:55 +0000
> David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > When they advertise the IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES MSR and it has the RDCL_NO
> > bit set, they don't need KPTI either.
> This is starting to get messy because we will eventually need to integrate
>
> AMD processors - no meltdown but spectre
> VIA processors - probably no vulnerabilities at
> least on the old ones
> Intel with ND set - No meltdown
> Anybody with no speculation - No meltdown, no spectre, no id bit
>
>
>
> and it expands a lot with all sorts of 32bit processors. Would it make
> more sense to make it table driven or do we want a separate function so
> we can do:
>
> if (!in_order_cpu()) {
> }
>
> around the whole lot ? I'm guessing the latter makes sense then
> somethhing like this patch I'm running on my old atom widgets in 64bit
> mode
>
> static __initdata struct x86_cpu_id cpu_in_order[] = {
> { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_CEDARVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_CLOVERVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_LINCROFT, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_PENWELL, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_PINEVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
> {}
> };
>
> static int in_order_cpu(void)
> {
> /* Processors with CPU id etc */
> if (x86_match_cpu(cpu_in_order))
> return 1;
> /* Other rules here */
> return 0;
> }
How's this? I'll send it out properly in a little while, but feel free
to heckle in advance...
From 26fd510f8100a869866fa416bf1bfb7ea22dcf9f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:43:08 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] x86/pti: Do not enable PTI on processors which are not
vulnerable to Meltdown
Some old Atoms, anything in family 5 or 4, and newer CPUs when they advertise
the IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES MSR and it has the RDCL_NO bit set, are not vulnerable.
Roll the AMD exemption into the x86_match_cpu() table too.
Based on suggestions from Dave Hansen and Alan Cox.
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index e5d66e93ed81..23375561d819 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -47,6 +47,8 @@
#include <asm/pat.h>
#include <asm/microcode.h>
#include <asm/microcode_intel.h>
+#include <asm/intel-family.h>
+#include <asm/cpu_device_id.h>
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
#include <asm/uv/uv.h>
@@ -853,6 +855,33 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
#endif
}
+static const __initdata struct x86_cpu_id cpu_no_meltdown[] = {
+ { X86_VENDOR_AMD },
+ { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_CEDARVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
+ { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_CLOVERVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
+ { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_LINCROFT, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
+ { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_PENWELL, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
+ { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_PINEVIEW, X86_FEATURE_ANY },
+ { X86_VENDOR_ANY, 5 },
+ { X86_VENDOR_ANY, 4 },
+ {}
+};
+
+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);
+ if (ia32_cap & ARCH_CAP_RDCL_NO)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
/*
* Do minimum CPU detection early.
* Fields really needed: vendor, cpuid_level, family, model, mask,
@@ -900,9 +929,8 @@ static void __init early_identify_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS);
- if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD)
+ if (early_cpu_vulnerable_meltdown(c))
setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_CPU_MELTDOWN);
-
setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V1);
setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2);
--
2.14.3
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 5213 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-24 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-23 16:52 [PATCH v2 0/5] Basic Speculation Control feature support David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 16:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] x86/cpufeatures: Add CPUID_7_EDX CPUID leaf David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 16:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] x86/cpufeatures: Add Intel feature bits for Speculation Control David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 18:43 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-24 1:23 ` Woodhouse, David
2018-01-24 1:28 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-24 8:13 ` Woodhouse, David
2018-01-23 16:52 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] x86/cpufeatures: Add AMD " David Woodhouse
2018-01-24 8:39 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-01-24 8:40 ` David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 16:52 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/msr: Add definitions for new speculation control MSRs David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 18:27 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-23 18:31 ` Greg KH
2018-01-23 18:48 ` Woodhouse, David
2018-01-23 16:52 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] x86/pti: Do not enable PTI on fixed Intel processors David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 18:12 ` Andi Kleen
2018-01-24 1:21 ` David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 18:40 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-24 1:27 ` David Woodhouse
2018-01-23 18:41 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-23 18:44 ` Woodhouse, David
2018-01-23 18:45 ` Alan Cox
2018-01-23 19:02 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-01-23 20:45 ` Alan Cox
2018-01-23 20:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-23 20:50 ` David Woodhouse
2018-01-24 16:25 ` David Woodhouse [this message]
2018-01-24 17:07 ` Alan Cox
2018-01-24 17:42 ` David Woodhouse
2018-01-24 18:40 ` Alan Cox
2018-01-24 18:59 ` David Woodhouse
2018-01-24 19:37 ` David Woodhouse
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1516811127.13558.150.camel@infradead.org \
--to=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®