From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF55CF31E24 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 15:13:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=O+JxQh76wlh3DwSn75VfeKXvfkjXxNnrM6s8RMYbFXk=; b=m84ilZ8yyKV24SDWa6w/nDJHtK FjD48RQaVbPghUONNgs9rv0+Rq2e4V3BOlJ5oarUrK0yJkEH18XCJxNGRqRB2l+6itKppx3jLYQ8/ LkfPP7H+oB2dR5894JdVO0siCSBqx7meN8vAfM0g4b3Wcsg1ZHGddgfNC4J04lWVMzbgmd670o4Nv MwsUrlMXLAPrIk7XdR5vz22NboDE4rgnlDQFKiEabxP3/WQ5jCg/E55PefTv8nE3LOGSLL9h49ZjI bPrndwPCPZ2buT2VWfikD/1Wr062S7OctnAR4yDdYkO5sVoXY2ip10BILlVpZSg2Aj0yyyHuMhEia m/AP5wcw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wAr4t-0000000Am6h-3qAP; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 15:13:55 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wAr4r-0000000Am6Z-3wva for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2026 15:13:54 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C4060123; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 15:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23C35C4CEF7; Thu, 9 Apr 2026 15:13:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1775747633; bh=aUbgZw7dA8jv4vpUf4Nf8KyWibYIl9xbNH07Y9ty3mM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Hef8DwhPQrLV1ZVZMGuUv+BMom2DjWCDE2uJwGGjz4NKv9Boe6tK+mwSr6FRdApqq 18+LSH0uCuMniZAbNXx/11hkQiMzezSYzRJLp8K56+WKolcds+CzzwwdVo+2rrL4eY SU/zUWVJ093xblL6mOFVVGM9H05WOM+ECzvycjdBwzK17vdMRRp9nH49+sSWYQ3toe VI/ZcUkzwCg/2pWY3Rzq9gK7phUhWFxzqFY+xSZyj1Y9CqBFBTs3LVXodCtrDP4APo Dwqs2rIge8ZmJm57vCv4ogsjf/oEP+gpZ/24HdOr5+IXEjtQqAEdEgeRlZCCMaN4dO 7gezgodKo4uCA== Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 16:13:47 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: David Woodhouse Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, joey.gouly@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64: mitigate CVE-2024-7881 in the absence of firmware mitigation Message-ID: References: <20250317212611.GA12724@willie-the-truck> <3c9c567f7a6e926e8ec24913d564ec55e8f450d2.camel@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3c9c567f7a6e926e8ec24913d564ec55e8f450d2.camel@infradead.org> X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 10:26:10PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 at 21:26:12 +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > I'm really not comfortable with this series and would prefer to see it > > dropped while we continue the discussion, especially as it's causing > > minor conflicts with the KVM/arm64 tree in -next. > > > > ... > > > > To be clear: I'm not at all against mitigating this problem and > > advertising the status of that mitigation. I *am* against quietly > > handling it like a CPU erratum whilst simultaneously telling userspace > > that meltdown is not a problem regardless of the mitigation state. > > Was there a conclusion? KVM still isn't even exposing > SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_4 to guests... I didn't see another version, so I think my comments (from a year ago!) still stand. Will