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;
Message-ID: <1531767303.4364.109.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?
From:   Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:55:03 +0100
In-Reply-To: <193fb2f5-8f6c-8fe6-298f-a6af4fae862a@linux.intel.com>
References: <20180716160513.GA6080@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
         <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807161851290.1693@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
         <193fb2f5-8f6c-8fe6-298f-a6af4fae862a@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Corporation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/16/2018 09:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > At least the Centerton (late-generation Bonnell uarch) Atom
> > > family is
> > > omitted from the cpu_no_speculation table added by commit
> > > fec9434a12f3
> > > to arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c. Is this intentional? Would a
> > > patch
> > > adding it and possibly other omissions be welcome?
> > 
> > Probably. Dave?
> 
> IIRC, Alan Cox was compiling a list on what is affected vs. not.  He
> would know way better than I.

The pre Silvermont atom cores are in order. When I did the original
list I didn't bother with all the 32bit cores as we didn't have any
32bit mitigations then.

Alan