From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE1B626462B for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742838085; cv=none; b=IB4zFqOWzweTYJ3DTfkh0hHNMPeTLhcF8MVBI92z/oYm0bGa+ot6Sp4cU1+6t3MfGGx9mN6xe1Eyfqd/5yOUn3O3p9p2nSd4eOiK43O08wgCY0kUDTGoVVfzEVqN97kxpNEOlPin8nLSOG2zuOR1O+T7/ZawRq36O5gksktsJ7I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742838085; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hy9anLT+yso7HLVYKMgm3lQib/ckrtMmioGEPpx4hus=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KcvIzPGCjKarIpgoqjKzP7NpZP5lAodHFeoIM/ltDiycfkFbqQMc+7NbQrB4DerzsWAOv1YZnABCIEWVaVM+W+VHJfa1owirvkiMgzXNUNn3krqdW9UHwwXEhYaj6tI2uvi4LaKBM987JiWLag57sfk0Km4TyF1oINlCtWTK3o8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=m0qrWwBq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="m0qrWwBq" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1742838084; x=1774374084; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=hy9anLT+yso7HLVYKMgm3lQib/ckrtMmioGEPpx4hus=; b=m0qrWwBqNu1BcdumapwnA7OwYw6j/eQMYNOfsNAcEWYiPsB9chTS+9Nr Xer7/W0Jk/2cjTie+BKXvQfQ8cWZ/QnWPhaKVxm0KP9r7ck5G75heTVyN TQ/Cz45BMMumzWHXTlonYTlMCUExw46SkghfTe3cnFvmupEgCXN3iCz7m IYgvjhWwebMBExs5rMzXIMhzbSfACnZM1Q82Hm1fUNAZgyInFJXoUEfuf zOBI8/e0tEJZ5tYe1MEtzRT0vhO8iriqWg7DiovuDvAYIvf130K0vuEE7 tsBPncIhfwxf6Q7Aq6ETWH76IgEzOfvudbWHioaea0AszEqgBh5/2HXS2 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Kp3tgertRvilWY67IgsZaw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: A5rbG2k0QUGzywmcUCYtBw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11383"; a="61583214" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,272,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="61583214" Received: from fmviesa008.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.148]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Mar 2025 10:41:23 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: AWPngOkURvy4A35d0cpDAw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 6teCpmLqTPSutk2e5RuVBA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,272,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="124280593" Received: from pmsonava-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO desk) ([10.125.145.197]) by fmviesa008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Mar 2025 10:41:22 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 10:41:15 -0700 From: Pawan Gupta To: Borislav Petkov Cc: David Kaplan , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Josh Poimboeuf , Ingo Molnar , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Brendan Jackman , Derek Manwaring , Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/36] x86/bugs: Restructure mmio mitigation Message-ID: <20250324174115.ogelbfgdmeoybi3b@desk> References: <20250310164023.779191-1-david.kaplan@amd.com> <20250310164023.779191-4-david.kaplan@amd.com> <20250313093617.GHZ9KnEXpdM4dwLYFz@fat_crate.local> <20250313192606.iijythngqtpx4tyy@desk> <20250324092915.GAZ-El68JG2BVuMK0K@fat_crate.local> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250324092915.GAZ-El68JG2BVuMK0K@fat_crate.local> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:29:15AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 12:26:06PM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote: > > Hmm, that would not be straightforward, specially for sysfs status. > > See below: > > - the unknown thing is done only for this vuln and not for the others > > - it doesn't do anything besides reporting things differently - it doesn't > apply any mitigations - it is simply causing unnecessary complications which > don't bring anything besides maintenance overhead. Unless I'm missing an > angle... "Unknown" status reporting was requested by Andrew Cooper. I am not able to find that conversation though. IIRC, the reason was out-of-service CPUs were not tested for the presence of vulnerability. Adding Andrew to Cc. > - all the currently unaffected CPUs can also be in "unknown" status so why is > this special? Makes sense. > IOW, just whack the thing. I will let Andrew comment on this.