* [PATCH 4.9 1/2] x86/cpu: Add Tiger Lake to Intel family @ 2022-08-30 23:02 Pawan Gupta 2022-08-30 23:03 ` [PATCH 4.9 2/2] x86/bugs: Add "unknown" reporting for MMIO Stale Data Pawan Gupta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Pawan Gupta @ 2022-08-30 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: stable Cc: gregkh, andrew.cooper3, bp, tony.luck, antonio.gomez.iglesias, Daniel Sneddon, linux-kernel From: Gayatri Kammela <gayatri.kammela@intel.com> [ Upstream commit 6e1c32c5dbb4b90eea8f964c2869d0bde050dbe0 ] Add the model numbers/CPUIDs of Tiger Lake mobile and desktop to the Intel family. Suggested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Gayatri Kammela <gayatri.kammela@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190905193020.14707-2-tony.luck@intel.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> --- arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h index 8b6c01774ca2..aadb91d43eef 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/intel-family.h @@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ #define INTEL_FAM6_ALDERLAKE 0x97 #define INTEL_FAM6_ALDERLAKE_L 0x9A +#define INTEL_FAM6_TIGERLAKE_L 0x8C +#define INTEL_FAM6_TIGERLAKE 0x8D + /* "Small Core" Processors (Atom) */ #define INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_BONNELL 0x1C /* Diamondville, Pineview */ base-commit: c97531caf70f2b533fa1944bf64dd06ac20edad6 -- 2.37.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 4.9 2/2] x86/bugs: Add "unknown" reporting for MMIO Stale Data 2022-08-30 23:02 [PATCH 4.9 1/2] x86/cpu: Add Tiger Lake to Intel family Pawan Gupta @ 2022-08-30 23:03 ` Pawan Gupta 2022-09-01 10:17 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Pawan Gupta @ 2022-08-30 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: stable Cc: gregkh, andrew.cooper3, bp, tony.luck, antonio.gomez.iglesias, Daniel Sneddon, linux-kernel [ Upstream commit 7df548840c496b0141fb2404b889c346380c2b22 ] Older Intel CPUs that are not in the affected processor list for MMIO Stale Data vulnerabilities currently report "Not affected" in sysfs, which may not be correct. Vulnerability status for these older CPUs is unknown. Add known-not-affected CPUs to the whitelist. Report "unknown" mitigation status for CPUs that are not in blacklist, whitelist and also don't enumerate MSR ARCH_CAPABILITIES bits that reflect hardware immunity to MMIO Stale Data vulnerabilities. Mitigation is not deployed when the status is unknown. [ bp: Massage, fixup. ] Fixes: 8d50cdf8b834 ("x86/speculation/mmio: Add sysfs reporting for Processor MMIO Stale Data") Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> Suggested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/a932c154772f2121794a5f2eded1a11013114711.1657846269.git.pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com --- .../hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst | 14 ++++++++ arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 + arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 14 ++++++-- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 34 +++++++++++++------ 4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst b/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst index 9393c50b5afc..c98fd11907cc 100644 --- a/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst +++ b/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst @@ -230,6 +230,20 @@ The possible values in this file are: * - 'Mitigation: Clear CPU buffers' - The processor is vulnerable and the CPU buffer clearing mitigation is enabled. + * - 'Unknown: No mitigations' + - The processor vulnerability status is unknown because it is + out of Servicing period. Mitigation is not attempted. + +Definitions: +------------ + +Servicing period: The process of providing functional and security updates to +Intel processors or platforms, utilizing the Intel Platform Update (IPU) +process or other similar mechanisms. + +End of Servicing Updates (ESU): ESU is the date at which Intel will no +longer provide Servicing, such as through IPU or other similar update +processes. ESU dates will typically be aligned to end of quarter. If the processor is vulnerable then the following information is appended to the above information: diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h index 910304aec2e6..a033fa5c596d 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h @@ -363,5 +363,6 @@ #define X86_BUG_ITLB_MULTIHIT X86_BUG(23) /* CPU may incur MCE during certain page attribute changes */ #define X86_BUG_SRBDS X86_BUG(24) /* CPU may leak RNG bits if not mitigated */ #define X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA X86_BUG(25) /* CPU is affected by Processor MMIO Stale Data vulnerabilities */ +#define X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN X86_BUG(26) /* CPU is too old and its MMIO Stale Data status is unknown */ #endif /* _ASM_X86_CPUFEATURES_H */ diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c index b4416df41d63..d8ba0b60e088 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c @@ -395,7 +395,8 @@ static void __init mmio_select_mitigation(void) u64 ia32_cap; if (!boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA) || - cpu_mitigations_off()) { + boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN) || + cpu_mitigations_off()) { mmio_mitigation = MMIO_MITIGATION_OFF; return; } @@ -500,6 +501,8 @@ static void __init md_clear_update_mitigation(void) pr_info("TAA: %s\n", taa_strings[taa_mitigation]); if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA)) pr_info("MMIO Stale Data: %s\n", mmio_strings[mmio_mitigation]); + else if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN)) + pr_info("MMIO Stale Data: Unknown: No mitigations\n"); } static void __init md_clear_select_mitigation(void) @@ -1824,6 +1827,9 @@ static ssize_t tsx_async_abort_show_state(char *buf) static ssize_t mmio_stale_data_show_state(char *buf) { + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN)) + return sysfs_emit(buf, "Unknown: No mitigations\n"); + if (mmio_mitigation == MMIO_MITIGATION_OFF) return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", mmio_strings[mmio_mitigation]); @@ -1934,6 +1940,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_show_common(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr return srbds_show_state(buf); case X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA: + case X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN: return mmio_stale_data_show_state(buf); default: @@ -1990,6 +1997,9 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_srbds(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char * ssize_t cpu_show_mmio_stale_data(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) { - return cpu_show_common(dev, attr, buf, X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN)) + return cpu_show_common(dev, attr, buf, X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN); + else + return cpu_show_common(dev, attr, buf, X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); } #endif diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c index 48843fc76695..656f336074a3 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c @@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) #define MSBDS_ONLY BIT(5) #define NO_SWAPGS BIT(6) #define NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT BIT(7) +#define NO_MMIO BIT(8) #define VULNWL(_vendor, _family, _model, _whitelist) \ { X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist } @@ -916,6 +917,11 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = { VULNWL(NSC, 5, X86_MODEL_ANY, NO_SPECULATION), /* Intel Family 6 */ + VULNWL_INTEL(TIGERLAKE, NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_INTEL(TIGERLAKE_L, NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_INTEL(ALDERLAKE, NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_INTEL(ALDERLAKE_L, NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SALTWELL, NO_SPECULATION | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SALTWELL_TABLET, NO_SPECULATION | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SALTWELL_MID, NO_SPECULATION | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), @@ -933,9 +939,9 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = { VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_AIRMONT_MID, NO_L1TF | MSBDS_ONLY | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), - VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), - VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_X, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), - VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_PLUS, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), + VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_X, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_PLUS, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), /* * Technically, swapgs isn't serializing on AMD (despite it previously @@ -946,13 +952,13 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = { */ /* AMD Family 0xf - 0x12 */ - VULNWL_AMD(0x0f, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), - VULNWL_AMD(0x10, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), - VULNWL_AMD(0x11, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), - VULNWL_AMD(0x12, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), + VULNWL_AMD(0x0f, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_AMD(0x10, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_AMD(0x11, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), + VULNWL_AMD(0x12, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), /* FAMILY_ANY must be last, otherwise 0x0f - 0x12 matches won't work */ - VULNWL_AMD(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), + VULNWL_AMD(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), {} }; @@ -1092,10 +1098,16 @@ static void __init cpu_set_bug_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) * Affected CPU list is generally enough to enumerate the vulnerability, * but for virtualization case check for ARCH_CAP MSR bits also, VMM may * not want the guest to enumerate the bug. + * + * Set X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN for CPUs that are neither in the blacklist, + * nor in the whitelist and also don't enumerate MSR ARCH_CAP MMIO bits. */ - if (cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_blacklist, MMIO) && - !arch_cap_mmio_immune(ia32_cap)) - setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); + if (!arch_cap_mmio_immune(ia32_cap)) { + if (cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_blacklist, MMIO)) + setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); + else if (!cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_whitelist, NO_MMIO)) + setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN); + } if (cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_whitelist, NO_MELTDOWN)) return; -- 2.37.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4.9 2/2] x86/bugs: Add "unknown" reporting for MMIO Stale Data 2022-08-30 23:03 ` [PATCH 4.9 2/2] x86/bugs: Add "unknown" reporting for MMIO Stale Data Pawan Gupta @ 2022-09-01 10:17 ` Greg KH 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Greg KH @ 2022-09-01 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pawan Gupta Cc: stable, andrew.cooper3, bp, tony.luck, antonio.gomez.iglesias, Daniel Sneddon, linux-kernel On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 04:03:24PM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote: > [ Upstream commit 7df548840c496b0141fb2404b889c346380c2b22 ] > > Older Intel CPUs that are not in the affected processor list for MMIO > Stale Data vulnerabilities currently report "Not affected" in sysfs, > which may not be correct. Vulnerability status for these older CPUs is > unknown. > > Add known-not-affected CPUs to the whitelist. Report "unknown" > mitigation status for CPUs that are not in blacklist, whitelist and also > don't enumerate MSR ARCH_CAPABILITIES bits that reflect hardware > immunity to MMIO Stale Data vulnerabilities. > > Mitigation is not deployed when the status is unknown. > > [ bp: Massage, fixup. ] > > Fixes: 8d50cdf8b834 ("x86/speculation/mmio: Add sysfs reporting for Processor MMIO Stale Data") > Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > Suggested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/a932c154772f2121794a5f2eded1a11013114711.1657846269.git.pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com > --- > .../hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst | 14 ++++++++ > arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 + > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 14 ++++++-- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 34 +++++++++++++------ > 4 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst b/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst > index 9393c50b5afc..c98fd11907cc 100644 > --- a/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst > +++ b/Documentation/hw-vuln/processor_mmio_stale_data.rst > @@ -230,6 +230,20 @@ The possible values in this file are: > * - 'Mitigation: Clear CPU buffers' > - The processor is vulnerable and the CPU buffer clearing mitigation is > enabled. > + * - 'Unknown: No mitigations' > + - The processor vulnerability status is unknown because it is > + out of Servicing period. Mitigation is not attempted. > + > +Definitions: > +------------ > + > +Servicing period: The process of providing functional and security updates to > +Intel processors or platforms, utilizing the Intel Platform Update (IPU) > +process or other similar mechanisms. > + > +End of Servicing Updates (ESU): ESU is the date at which Intel will no > +longer provide Servicing, such as through IPU or other similar update > +processes. ESU dates will typically be aligned to end of quarter. > > If the processor is vulnerable then the following information is appended to > the above information: > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > index 910304aec2e6..a033fa5c596d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > @@ -363,5 +363,6 @@ > #define X86_BUG_ITLB_MULTIHIT X86_BUG(23) /* CPU may incur MCE during certain page attribute changes */ > #define X86_BUG_SRBDS X86_BUG(24) /* CPU may leak RNG bits if not mitigated */ > #define X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA X86_BUG(25) /* CPU is affected by Processor MMIO Stale Data vulnerabilities */ > +#define X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN X86_BUG(26) /* CPU is too old and its MMIO Stale Data status is unknown */ > > #endif /* _ASM_X86_CPUFEATURES_H */ > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > index b4416df41d63..d8ba0b60e088 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > @@ -395,7 +395,8 @@ static void __init mmio_select_mitigation(void) > u64 ia32_cap; > > if (!boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA) || > - cpu_mitigations_off()) { > + boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN) || > + cpu_mitigations_off()) { > mmio_mitigation = MMIO_MITIGATION_OFF; > return; > } > @@ -500,6 +501,8 @@ static void __init md_clear_update_mitigation(void) > pr_info("TAA: %s\n", taa_strings[taa_mitigation]); > if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA)) > pr_info("MMIO Stale Data: %s\n", mmio_strings[mmio_mitigation]); > + else if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN)) > + pr_info("MMIO Stale Data: Unknown: No mitigations\n"); > } > > static void __init md_clear_select_mitigation(void) > @@ -1824,6 +1827,9 @@ static ssize_t tsx_async_abort_show_state(char *buf) > > static ssize_t mmio_stale_data_show_state(char *buf) > { > + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN)) > + return sysfs_emit(buf, "Unknown: No mitigations\n"); > + > if (mmio_mitigation == MMIO_MITIGATION_OFF) > return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", mmio_strings[mmio_mitigation]); > > @@ -1934,6 +1940,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_show_common(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr > return srbds_show_state(buf); > > case X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA: > + case X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN: > return mmio_stale_data_show_state(buf); > > default: > @@ -1990,6 +1997,9 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_srbds(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char * > > ssize_t cpu_show_mmio_stale_data(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > { > - return cpu_show_common(dev, attr, buf, X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); > + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN)) > + return cpu_show_common(dev, attr, buf, X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN); > + else > + return cpu_show_common(dev, attr, buf, X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); > } > #endif > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > index 48843fc76695..656f336074a3 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c > @@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > #define MSBDS_ONLY BIT(5) > #define NO_SWAPGS BIT(6) > #define NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT BIT(7) > +#define NO_MMIO BIT(8) > > #define VULNWL(_vendor, _family, _model, _whitelist) \ > { X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist } > @@ -916,6 +917,11 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = { > VULNWL(NSC, 5, X86_MODEL_ANY, NO_SPECULATION), > > /* Intel Family 6 */ > + VULNWL_INTEL(TIGERLAKE, NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_INTEL(TIGERLAKE_L, NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_INTEL(ALDERLAKE, NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_INTEL(ALDERLAKE_L, NO_MMIO), > + > VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SALTWELL, NO_SPECULATION | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SALTWELL_TABLET, NO_SPECULATION | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SALTWELL_MID, NO_SPECULATION | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > @@ -933,9 +939,9 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = { > > VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_AIRMONT_MID, NO_L1TF | MSBDS_ONLY | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > > - VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > - VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_X, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > - VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_PLUS, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > + VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_X, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_GOLDMONT_PLUS, NO_MDS | NO_L1TF | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > > /* > * Technically, swapgs isn't serializing on AMD (despite it previously > @@ -946,13 +952,13 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = { > */ > > /* AMD Family 0xf - 0x12 */ > - VULNWL_AMD(0x0f, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > - VULNWL_AMD(0x10, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > - VULNWL_AMD(0x11, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > - VULNWL_AMD(0x12, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > + VULNWL_AMD(0x0f, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_AMD(0x10, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_AMD(0x11, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > + VULNWL_AMD(0x12, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > > /* FAMILY_ANY must be last, otherwise 0x0f - 0x12 matches won't work */ > - VULNWL_AMD(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT), > + VULNWL_AMD(X86_FAMILY_ANY, NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT | NO_MMIO), > {} > }; > > @@ -1092,10 +1098,16 @@ static void __init cpu_set_bug_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > * Affected CPU list is generally enough to enumerate the vulnerability, > * but for virtualization case check for ARCH_CAP MSR bits also, VMM may > * not want the guest to enumerate the bug. > + * > + * Set X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN for CPUs that are neither in the blacklist, > + * nor in the whitelist and also don't enumerate MSR ARCH_CAP MMIO bits. > */ > - if (cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_blacklist, MMIO) && > - !arch_cap_mmio_immune(ia32_cap)) > - setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); > + if (!arch_cap_mmio_immune(ia32_cap)) { > + if (cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_blacklist, MMIO)) > + setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_STALE_DATA); > + else if (!cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_whitelist, NO_MMIO)) > + setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN); > + } > > if (cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_whitelist, NO_MELTDOWN)) > return; > -- > 2.37.2 > > All now queued up, thanks. greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-01 10:17 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2022-08-30 23:02 [PATCH 4.9 1/2] x86/cpu: Add Tiger Lake to Intel family Pawan Gupta 2022-08-30 23:03 ` [PATCH 4.9 2/2] x86/bugs: Add "unknown" reporting for MMIO Stale Data Pawan Gupta 2022-09-01 10:17 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox