Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp252936imn; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:17:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtZG5bIZ6HOEDng0XwYVya0a9iH9GKXGAMCh+3UAmXSqhjGHSkWlDbED2P2YcoxqQ2o7Ed1 X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:4643:: with SMTP id o61-v6mr35285pld.103.1520936226800; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:17:06 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1520936226; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=LceaR8bK7M7ZDZAOl0OBWnflmr7IpQGX40s3GJw/ZWiUTZhDYPfqqj2fJF8TDHMHAD jQX7FvhMyFgZ69RqFuwrW/khL6uq0Jtqf0YQiPCwX8nJ0fWQZKWi194eq8aQOq/N04YW 2wL/dEUMcPVdJU5q5GYMdhHzyAnU0fgjmyxk0zVzx0ROBTmkI0X2CO0+lhNT8tcUPOGf 2PF3AmA3Tz/LL07rEwzo2+LWm4f20UOQaJmV8dsza0CzJK0WZ6muUo+pBla3N5Q842ia TN0HIxAAHK5N/ZPgBoAxM/+e2ufvzE6jcluAfmiOwK0i51HuVFU1KIepuv8DLFQe0zsY VaDw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=PMBjTZaid5TlKJEK+lqgFQXjIOEKwY1hIPW7n+IpYYY=; b=W8qxyF8j2YP2SyJP/WRbojLQSqwIN+8mlX8jMwYL5jdQ+UAJRewpuhcBqp3DhUHmRe nAJ+k74z2A0IWpaMy36WL9rr99B3daAhXe/H3zHzV7sHAZrzdpSc6c7DRnmSoCz2kTZR oq5Qz47DZtrMYSn2muKZ76jfohI0mpLp5YOUNC/Q6R7ZA8eXwLO7r8T/Kpu6nSytyCp/ stZl8PZc/WvtU6l9bqRrMF60wxFYnQYubkZ64028O+NTzw6uMyNGoGY8pPiyHmziHRCm 48aEpYwg5RAPGWs42HTLe7jHLj6LINdnBiQCEz9HmUu67/uGYWRuW4DYqUs6dFn/BRCj rKfA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=UMft3UI1; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j91-v6si10038pld.202.2018.03.13.03.16.21; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=UMft3UI1; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752444AbeCMKN3 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:13:29 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f196.google.com ([209.85.223.196]:39584 "EHLO mail-io0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752130AbeCMKN1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:13:27 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f196.google.com with SMTP id v10so8415399iob.6 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:13:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PMBjTZaid5TlKJEK+lqgFQXjIOEKwY1hIPW7n+IpYYY=; b=UMft3UI1ar7M2c4vTD9Kx8K+ZVAgXiuuqqaQSK4kBxnkFd4Ic3p5WnfVus18ZWTcPw FoG5GrCMsUqApVXOKAu3VOZsZO+9cyCvGahHs6hM/j9WZTbbz3ONwr7NvXIbuG6KRvzD xRm6ADn+O1v0oGt4svJuDrM76iFXI/mcM7uvQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PMBjTZaid5TlKJEK+lqgFQXjIOEKwY1hIPW7n+IpYYY=; b=XaTHdd7RYNGWF6o1xZmCRWZNMEi7k9yNdwN3SEOssn622AkCmQCqn47vCWC/jEwMbe ONoocnm8c/mRvcpKWtRdOCHfbQLqafmVQ//be3+QX33rTHaMXwqyzuFkfd1PzQxvFSqI DKvV3S8eHN0VCswGC0h/tiC4qadZndY3lN6zlZ739V1+1rFKpTFx7yqfNnHNQ8A+OzoC sN5/ufhRli8Y/UjI3PZRmB1vC/+cGT8HPRoJ7ZjDRPhH3uqQu5TVR1i2QinU9xDfcGsb +FyAh2c7IuCIaCIreGab47bLDXjQs9AEfPNZTwG9UUXiEbijYRHwZSR+IXuKWBRp2yKR KxNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FA+dQPwGbV7t2VN/1/e9MDLIoX/LWjFM4GuvUap17cXrRn5Ojs OBjE+KSZBYaXlLik/i1RvvnuLSrrcrtNEddve1sgCg== X-Received: by 10.107.41.16 with SMTP id p16mr16683iop.173.1520936007184; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:13:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.138.209 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 03:13:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180313100442.GB1999@kroah.com> References: <1519790211-16582-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <20180301152450.GA4061@kroah.com> <5cf40379-9098-da02-a471-8abd7d8f0be8@linaro.org> <20180302165415.GB8704@kroah.com> <20180313100442.GB1999@kroah.com> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:13:26 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/29] arm meltdown fix backporting review for lts 4.9 To: Greg KH Cc: Alex Shi , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13 March 2018 at 10:04, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 06:24:09PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 2 March 2018 at 16:54, Greg KH wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:14:50PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 03/01/2018 11:24 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:56:22AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> >> >> This backport patchset fixed the meltdown issue, it's original branch: >> >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=kpti >> >> >> A few dependency or fixingpatches are also picked up, if they are necessary >> >> >> and no functional changes. >> >> >> >> >> >> The patchset also on repository: >> >> >> git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-stable.git lts-4.9-spectrevv2 >> >> >> >> >> >> No bug found yet from kernelci.org and lkft testing. >> >> > >> >> > No bugs is good, but does it actually fix the meltdown problem? What >> >> > did you test it on? >> >> >> >> Oh, I have no A73/A75 cpu, so I can not reproduce meltdown bug. >> > >> > Then why should I trust this backport at all? >> > >> > Please test on the hardware that is affected, otherwise you do not know >> > if your patches do anything or not. >> > >> >> I don't think it is feasible to test these backports by confirming >> that they make the fundamental issue go away. We simply don't have the >> code to reproduce all the variants, and we have to rely on the >> information provided by ARM Ltd. regarding which cores are affected >> and which aren't. > > You really don't have the reproducers? Please work with ARM to resolve > that, this should not be a non-tested set of patches. That's really > worse than no patches at all, as if they were applied, that would > provide a false-sense of "all is fixed". > I know that on x86, the line between architecture and platform is blurry. That is not the case on ARM, though. Unlike platform firmware, the OS is built on top of an abstracted platform which is described by ARM's Architecture Reference Manual. If ARM Ltd. issues recommendations regarding what firmware PSCI methods to call when doing a context switch, or which barrier instruction to issue in certain circumstances, they do so because a certain class of hardware may require it in some cases. It is really not up to me to go find some exploit code on GitHub, run it before and after applying the patch and conclude that the problem is fixed. Instead, what I should do is confirm that the changes result in the recommended actions to be taken at the appropriate times.