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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71493C433FF for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:12:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EACC20843 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:12:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=riseup.net header.i=@riseup.net header.b="IewXAZIF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726648AbfHNJMF (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 05:12:05 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:58372 "EHLO mx1.riseup.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726383AbfHNJME (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 05:12:04 -0400 Received: from capuchin.riseup.net (capuchin-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D67AC1B91B1; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 02:12:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1565773922; bh=oW9fbXdkjx9OcEYJVruSc0eYgJA1NnILKtEzwNxUvIk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Reply-To:From; b=IewXAZIFcj0DVjhSQ9klLUWPW5KnV+DCfwG2fSiwFjE3zPrUEHzrg9LAmj3dmnPXW XyF0fZQeWxywgXbUrfsiQQd21GRM2O7+elA03F0CTiXrgTvrMgadc995/Y57iW2BDu MfGwLc9p2MGcWoIGknK/mwBrBFBKvf7ueacOZn4k= X-Riseup-User-ID: D21A026486371A7AB26BE3B4C633D8C2FAE9D2EA9EAA6509300DB21F4C84058E Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by capuchin.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17CB71202AD; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 02:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:11:54 +0300 From: Kernel User To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: mhocko@suse.com, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/ doesn't show all known CPU vulnerabilities Message-ID: <20190814121154.12f488f7@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20190814070457.GA26456@zn.tnic> References: <20190813232829.3a1962cc@localhost> <20190813212115.GO16770@zn.tnic> <20190814010041.098fe4be@localhost> <20190814070457.GA26456@zn.tnic> Reply-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:04:57 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > IMO, what you want does not belong in sysfs but in documentation. How would documentation (a fixed static text file) tell whether a particular system is vulnerable or not? > I partially see your point that a table of sorts mapping all those CPU > vulnerability names to (possible) mitigations is needed for users > which would like to know whether they're covered, without having to > run some scripts from github, Correct. > but sysfs just ain't the place. Then why is it currently used for some of the vulnerabilities? I am not an expert and I don't know if it is the place. My only concern is to have that information which we currently don't regardless of where it may be placed.