From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (146.0.238.70:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 14 Jan 2019 19:23:43 -0000 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gj7pl-0003pe-Jn for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:23:42 +0100 Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v4 06/28] MDSv4 11 References: <8388d491eac74581e40abe2096e81213037482be.1547256470.git.ak@linux.intel.com> From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <892e7dbe-a531-539d-61f4-a723a40f0109@intel.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:23:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8388d491eac74581e40abe2096e81213037482be.1547256470.git.ak@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="vcR9s8ZmXXltP6ilTH3DIfHOvdG8l69Nr"; protected-headers="v1" To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME encrypted message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --vcR9s8ZmXXltP6ilTH3DIfHOvdG8l69Nr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > + case X86_BUG_MDS: > + /* Assumes Hypervisor exposed HT state to us if in guest */ > + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MD_CLEAR)) { > + if (cpu_smt_control !=3D CPU_SMT_ENABLED) > + return sprintf(buf, "Mitigation: microcode\n"); > + return sprintf(buf, "Mitigation: microcode, HT vulnerable\n"); > + } > + return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n"); What are we trying to convey by saying "HT vulnerable"? There are a ton of patches in this set that do HT mitigations, so just saying "vulnerable" seems a bit cynical. Seems like I'm missing something. --vcR9s8ZmXXltP6ilTH3DIfHOvdG8l69Nr--