FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[gregkh]

The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:



thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 12:06:02 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the
 spectre_bhb_loop_affected() lists

When comparing to the ARM list [1], it appears that several ARM cores
were missing from the lists in spectre_bhb_loop_affected(). Add them.

NOTE: for some of these cores it may not matter since other ways of
clearing the BHB may be used (like the CLRBHB instruction or ECBHB),
but it still seems good to have all the info from ARM's whitepaper
included.

[1] https://developer.arm.com/Arm%20Security%20Center/Spectre-BHB

Fixes: 558c303c9734 ("arm64: Mitigate spectre style branch history side channels")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250107120555.v4.5.I4a9a527e03f663040721c5401c41de587d015c82@changeid
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
index 89405be53d8f..0f51fd10b4b0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
@@ -876,6 +876,14 @@ static u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(void)
 {
 	u8 k = 0;
 
+	static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k132_list[] = {
+		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X3),
+		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_V2),
+	};
+	static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k38_list[] = {
+		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A715),
+		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A720),
+	};
 	static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k32_list[] = {
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78),
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78AE),
@@ -889,6 +897,7 @@ static u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(void)
 	};
 	static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k24_list[] = {
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A76),
+		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A76AE),
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A77),
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N1),
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
@@ -904,7 +913,11 @@ static u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(void)
 		{},
 	};
 
-	if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k32_list))
+	if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k132_list))
+		k = 132;
+	else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k38_list))
+		k = 38;
+	else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k32_list))
 		k = 32;
 	else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k24_list))
 		k = 24;

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[Harshit Mogalapalli]

Hi stable maintainers,

On 08/04/25 14:45, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> 
> The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
> If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> 
> To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> 
> git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
> git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
> # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> git commit -s
> git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..
> 
> Possible dependencies:
> 
> 

Note:

Have observed that mostly these dependencies are empty in newer stable 
FAILED patch emails.

Thanks,
Harshit

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
...
> 

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 03:22:47PM +0530, Harshit Mogalapalli wrote:
> Hi stable maintainers,
> 
> On 08/04/25 14:45, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > 
> > The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
> > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> > 
> > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> > 
> > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
> > git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> > git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
> > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> > git commit -s
> > git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..
> > 
> > Possible dependencies:
> > 
> > 
> 
> Note:
> 
> Have observed that mostly these dependencies are empty in newer stable
> FAILED patch emails.

Maybe because there are no possible dependencies?  I don't know, those
are generated somehow "magically" by Sasha, so maybe he hasn't updated
them for newer releases?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:17 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
> If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
>
> To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
>
> git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
> git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
> # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> git commit -s
> git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..

FWIW, this patch applies cleanly for me to the top of 6.14.y if you
simply apply all 5 patches in the series, all of which are CC stable.
AKA these commands work

git checkout v6.14.1 # Current linux-6.14.y
git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d

Where you start getting a conflict is if you also take this patch from mainline:

e3121298c7fc arm64: Modify _midr_range() functions to read MIDR/REVIDR
internally

The merge conflict between those two series was resolved upstream in:

edb0e8f6e2e1 Merge tag 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm

-Doug

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 8:49 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:17 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
> > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> >
> > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> >
> > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
> > git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> > git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
> > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> > git commit -s
> > git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..
>
> FWIW, this patch applies cleanly for me to the top of 6.14.y if you
> simply apply all 5 patches in the series, all of which are CC stable.
> AKA these commands work
>
> git checkout v6.14.1 # Current linux-6.14.y
> git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d
>
> Where you start getting a conflict is if you also take this patch from mainline:
>
> e3121298c7fc arm64: Modify _midr_range() functions to read MIDR/REVIDR
> internally
>
> The merge conflict between those two series was resolved upstream in:
>
> edb0e8f6e2e1 Merge tag 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm

I tried again as of today's linux-6.14.y (which is 6.14.2), and the
patches still apply cleanly. I can send all 5 patches to the lists if
it's desired, but I'm uncertain if it's required since they all apply
cleanly. Just "git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d". They all
apply cleanly all the way back to 5.15 as far as I can tell. Would I
need to send the same 5 clean picks in response to every stable kernel
from 5.15 all the way to 6.14?

These patches don't apply cleanly to 5.4, but that's because kernel
5.4 doesn't have `proton-pack.c`, so presumably none of the Spectre
mitigations were ported back that far.

Some of the spectre stuff is present in 5.10, but it looks like not
all patches are being picked there. It's probably not critical to
support newer ARM cores there, but changing the default to say cores
are vulnerable might be worth it? What do folks think?

-Doug



-Doug


-Doug

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 08:37:36AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 8:49 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:17 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
> > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> > >
> > > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> > >
> > > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
> > > git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> > > git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
> > > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> > > git commit -s
> > > git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..
> >
> > FWIW, this patch applies cleanly for me to the top of 6.14.y if you
> > simply apply all 5 patches in the series, all of which are CC stable.
> > AKA these commands work
> >
> > git checkout v6.14.1 # Current linux-6.14.y
> > git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d
> >
> > Where you start getting a conflict is if you also take this patch from mainline:
> >
> > e3121298c7fc arm64: Modify _midr_range() functions to read MIDR/REVIDR
> > internally
> >
> > The merge conflict between those two series was resolved upstream in:
> >
> > edb0e8f6e2e1 Merge tag 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm
> 
> I tried again as of today's linux-6.14.y (which is 6.14.2), and the
> patches still apply cleanly. I can send all 5 patches to the lists if
> it's desired, but I'm uncertain if it's required since they all apply
> cleanly. Just "git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d". They all
> apply cleanly all the way back to 5.15 as far as I can tell. Would I
> need to send the same 5 clean picks in response to every stable kernel
> from 5.15 all the way to 6.14?

I see all but the last one in the stable queues right now, let me try
the last one...

Ok, that one also applied from 5.15.y and newer.

> These patches don't apply cleanly to 5.4, but that's because kernel
> 5.4 doesn't have `proton-pack.c`, so presumably none of the Spectre
> mitigations were ported back that far.
> 
> Some of the spectre stuff is present in 5.10, but it looks like not
> all patches are being picked there. It's probably not critical to
> support newer ARM cores there, but changing the default to say cores
> are vulnerable might be worth it? What do folks think?a

That's up to you.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the" failed to apply to 6.14-stable tree

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 7:10 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 08:37:36AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 8:49 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:17 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The patch below does not apply to the 6.14-stable tree.
> > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > > > id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> > > >
> > > > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> > > >
> > > > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.14.y
> > > > git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> > > > git cherry-pick -x a5951389e58d2e816eed3dbec5877de9327fd881
> > > > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> > > > git commit -s
> > > > git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025040844-unlivable-strum-7c2f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.14.y' HEAD^..
> > >
> > > FWIW, this patch applies cleanly for me to the top of 6.14.y if you
> > > simply apply all 5 patches in the series, all of which are CC stable.
> > > AKA these commands work
> > >
> > > git checkout v6.14.1 # Current linux-6.14.y
> > > git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d
> > >
> > > Where you start getting a conflict is if you also take this patch from mainline:
> > >
> > > e3121298c7fc arm64: Modify _midr_range() functions to read MIDR/REVIDR
> > > internally
> > >
> > > The merge conflict between those two series was resolved upstream in:
> > >
> > > edb0e8f6e2e1 Merge tag 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm
> >
> > I tried again as of today's linux-6.14.y (which is 6.14.2), and the
> > patches still apply cleanly. I can send all 5 patches to the lists if
> > it's desired, but I'm uncertain if it's required since they all apply
> > cleanly. Just "git cherry-pick ed1ce841245d~..a5951389e58d". They all
> > apply cleanly all the way back to 5.15 as far as I can tell. Would I
> > need to send the same 5 clean picks in response to every stable kernel
> > from 5.15 all the way to 6.14?
>
> I see all but the last one in the stable queues right now, let me try
> the last one...
>
> Ok, that one also applied from 5.15.y and newer.

Thanks! Yeah, I saw a bunch go through. I'll try to check back in a
few days to make sure they all show up on git.


> > These patches don't apply cleanly to 5.4, but that's because kernel
> > 5.4 doesn't have `proton-pack.c`, so presumably none of the Spectre
> > mitigations were ported back that far.
> >
> > Some of the spectre stuff is present in 5.10, but it looks like not
> > all patches are being picked there. It's probably not critical to
> > support newer ARM cores there, but changing the default to say cores
> > are vulnerable might be worth it? What do folks think?a
>
> That's up to you.

I ended up finding the spectre stuff even on v5.4--it was just in a
different file. However, I'm not going to attempt to do any
backporting to v5.4 or v5.10 myself because:

* The original incentive for me to post this series was to add
QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD to the k24 list. ...but there's no support for that
CPU in 5.4 upstream anyway.

* The Kryo4XX patch _did_ apply to 5.10, just the further cleanups to
"assume vulnerable" failed because the 5.10 tree doesn't have all the
cleanups it depended upon. Backporting it would be a bigger effort and
I'm not sure what the incentive would be. I'm happy to review if
someone else wants to do the backport, though.

* The patch to add newer ARM cores seems even less likely to be needed
on 5.4 / 5.10 kernels. Hopefully anyone developing on those newer
cores is using a newer kernel.

-Doug