From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD17919D8A8; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 05:26:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775626007; cv=none; b=d/Hw3tUo/LKHTegr009zisTC1JoQYl/DA2aT+zduD2Sgzj5ou5TDHxbFSdEJc60i5DPD/NA6l8zkbDfvClu4KiBcIVqSAKd5vNVRMAIZWiJkpwmrc3fkg9JWbgYcqejTysxbkYWFykx6eep6k1WVbHRDIwvSYQJGJlIPYkE7WrA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775626007; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XsU6WhozryYy7v1DY8CC3XtjtWyaqGZUOVMrTW8OyQ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=R5eJcNcbcoEz1WwBhRExpDiZfbTaJ1ncH5WdVGFoUfCWLPP57c/RNRqKIDH9LjWdA7dDehkJwQq6aR3/h1jyhye5JjzZbuFj6HGAT4Pi/yBb4H8J98Dg+SfYcueTtFvoLQjynaF/Sj15XYBtb8lQVVdzZcQD/4Ir1gy/nhrQjT4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=mTg/MKx9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="mTg/MKx9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15DCAC19424; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 05:26:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1775626007; bh=XsU6WhozryYy7v1DY8CC3XtjtWyaqGZUOVMrTW8OyQ0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mTg/MKx9sMhGOnAl5gaB4xQZy2Aql9qi+PLwxiiGnC3APChcS4LGkMXS1WiQtgCSd F5MIzYAPk0AbNj11kGDjpGoejp9lyU0flAyKn3NvV2GTe7cAx8Q9DOMHV2RhiXInj6 DkyI4lGAibFNgSHdtgeeLecAQWk09BCrLPKuoV2I= Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 07:26:45 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Bibo Mao Cc: Xi Ruoyao , loongarch@lists.linux.dev, arnd@arndb.de, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Huacai Chen , WANG Xuerui , stable Subject: Re: [PATCH] LoongArch: add spectre boundry for syscall dispatch table Message-ID: <2026040814-console-curvy-fd6f@gregkh> References: <2026032456-crinkle-washable-96ea@gregkh> <2026032541-rental-sizably-48bd@gregkh> <2026040259-landowner-chamomile-f581@gregkh> <60f0307f-0c44-4f14-0185-4f0a16cf3a9c@loongson.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <60f0307f-0c44-4f14-0185-4f0a16cf3a9c@loongson.cn> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 09:17:07AM +0800, Bibo Mao wrote: > > > On 2026/4/2 下午10:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 09:53:09AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 11:26:29AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2026-03-24 at 17:30 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > The LoongArch syscall number is directly controlled by userspace, but > > > > > does not have a array_index_nospec() boundry to prevent access past > > > > > the > > > > > syscall function pointer tables. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Huacai Chen > > > > > Cc: WANG Xuerui > > > > > Assisted-by: gkh_clanker_2000 > > > > > Cc: stable > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > > --- > > > > > My scripts caught this as I think LoongArch is vulnerable to the > > > > > > > > There's no evidence. The kernel currently report all LoongArch > > > > processors invulnerable to spectre V1 via cpuinfo. > > > > > > Where is that? In the sysfs files, or in the actual silicon testing? > > > > > > > So NAK unless there's a reproducer of spectre V1 on LoongArch. If so > > > > we'd also need to adjust the cpuinfo output. > > > > > > I really thought this cpu was vulnerable to this, but if the companies > > > say it isn't, then great, but reports like this: > > > https://cc-sw.com/chinese-loongarch-architecture-evaluation-part-3-of-3/ > > > say that the silicon is vulnerable. So, which is it? > > > > Any thoughts about this? > co-ask though it is hard to decide :( Can't you all run the reproducers on your platform to determine this? There should be some basic ones around somewhere, this is a very old bug :) thanks, greg k-h