From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:29:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 00/45] arm Spectre fix backport review for LTS 4.9 In-Reply-To: References: <1519908862-11425-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <20180301164630.GB23321@kroah.com> Message-ID: <86r2p23h3v.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 09:02:32 +0000, Alex Shi wrote: > > > > On 03/02/2018 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 08:53:37PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Resent without non-upstream patches. > >> > >> This backport patchset fixed the spectre 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. > >> > >> No bug found from kernelci.org and lkft testing. It also could be gotten from: > >> > >> git://git.linaro.org/kernel/linux-linaro-stable.git v4.9-spectre-upstream-only > > > > Also, how did you test, what platforms did you test, and did you test > > that this actually did fix the spectre issue on your platforms? If so, > > what test did you use? > > > > On the kernelci, there are 18 kinds of platoforms with different > configure tested booting, detailed info is here: > https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/lsk/branch/linux-linaro-lsk-v4.9-test/kernel/lsk-v4.9-17.03-4844-g6f782cff6edb/ > > I also tested the qemu boot on hikey620. and normal boot on Did you try QEMU in conjunction with KVM? Or just in emulation? > hikey620/db410c/junor2. The other testing include the LKFT testing which > is reported by email, same as test for LTS. None of testing show > regressions. > > > As testing the spectre bug fix, that's a good question. I also asked > this question to original patch authors, like Marc. They said they just > figure out these patches could block spectre or meltdown issue. From my > side, I just reproduced the process internal spectre. But all fix on arm > can not resolve the user space internal spectre. It can block from user > to kernel or kernel to user spectre according the code purose. So I > believe these patch could do their job. And arm cpu would drop the > spectre branches if it has 20+ 'nop' instructions... What are you talking about? What's that story about NOPs? There are clear mitigation guidelines for ARM cores, please don't make things up. M. -- Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.