From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <bp@suse.de>
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15])	by Galois.linutronix.de with
 esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256)	(Exim 4.80)	(envelope-from
 <bp@suse.de>)	id 1fAifr-0000A8-TR	for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 23 Apr 2018
 23:07:00 +0200
Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254])
	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C77DAB4B
	for <speck@linutronix.de>; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 21:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 23:06:43 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] [PATCH v3 6/9] Linux Patch #6
Message-ID: <20180423210643.GO24245@pd.tnic>
References: <20180423171426.795385641@dhcp-10-159-147-220.vpn.oracle.com>
 <20180423183459.GL24245@pd.tnic>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1804232242250.28129@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1804232242250.28129@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: speck@linutronix.de
List-ID: <speck.linutronix.de>

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:45:10PM +0200, speck for Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Don't we really want it to appear in /proc/cpuinfo though?
>=20
> At the end of the day, it really is about toggling an internal CPU feature =

> behavior, so I'd say it belongs there.
>=20
> We even have PTI there, and this is way more actually really internal to=20
> the CPU.

Well, the thing is that other CPUs have store bypassing too but they
don't necessarily have the disabling bit.

So if anything, we should use the X86_BUG_CPU_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS
bit so that it appears in the bugs: line.

I mean, one of the two: X86_FEATURE_STBUF_BYPASS or
X86_BUG_CPU_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS is redundant AFAICT so we can stick with
the X86_BUG one.

Also, we have the state in /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/ too,
in case something needs it.

--=20
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HR=
B 21284 (AG N=C3=BCrnberg)
--=20