From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (193.142.43.55:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 20 Apr 2020 22:30:51 -0000 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jQewC-0008F3-Il for speck@linutronix.de; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:30:50 +0200 Received: from localhost (mtg-dev.jf.intel.com [10.54.74.10]) by smtp.ostc.intel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF41D6363 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:30:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:30:42 -0700 From: mark gross Subject: [MODERATED] Re: Re: [PATCH 4/4] V8 more sampling fun 4 Message-ID: <20200420223042.GB23804@mtg-dev.jf.intel.com> Reply-To: mgross@linux.intel.com References: <20200416172021.rf4l55ci6leimccm@treble> <20200416174914.GH21456@zn.tnic> <20200420143046.GA23804@mtg-dev.jf.intel.com> <87eesixhao.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87eesixhao.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:17:51PM +0200, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote: > speck for mark gross writes: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:49:14PM +0200, speck for Borislav Petkov wrote: > > from your emails it looks like you are putting together the final version. I > > have recently (this morning) found out I need to add another family > > model to > > Sigh... > > > the affected processor list. Do you have a branch I could use to make a follow > > up patch too? (or if you are cool with me adding it to my local version and > > dealing with any minor fix ups let me know) > > Can you please send delta patch on top of your v8? no need. I got confused. FWIW the white paper listed Ivy bridge family 6, model 3A any stepping as affected then they removed it Ivy bridge is no longer getting uCode updates. Recently (this morning) they are recommending to leave Ivy Bridge in the kernel patch as it is affected. I thought I yanked it from the cpu_vuln_blacklist array but, I guess I thought I did but didn't. so its good as is :) --mark