From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:37015 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726862AbeKNEIN (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 23:08:13 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id j10so168376wru.4 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:08:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 V2 09/24] ARM: spectre-v2: add firmware based hardening To: Marc Zyngier , Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren , Mark Rutland , David Long , Greg KH , Mark Brown References: <20181107164402.9380-1-dave.long@linaro.org> <20181107164402.9380-10-dave.long@linaro.org> <20181112165410.GG30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <86k1lhdpki.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> From: Florian Fainelli Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:08:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <86k1lhdpki.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/13/18 6:23 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Russell, > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 16:54:10 +0000, > Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> Marc, >> >> Can you please ack this to say that you are now happy with it after >> your comments on version 1, so we can move forward and have Greg >> merge it. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 11:43:47AM -0500, David Long wrote: >>> From: Russell King >>> >>> Commit 10115105cb3aa17b5da1cb726ae8dd5f6854bd93 upstream. >>> Commit 6282e916f774e37845c65d1eae9f8c649004f033 upstream. >>> >>> Add firmware based hardening for cores that require more complex >>> handling in firmware. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Russell King >>> Boot-tested-by: Tony Lindgren >>> Reviewed-by: Tony Lindgren >>> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier >>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long > > Sure. Feel free to add my > > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier > > I assume someone has tested these patches (I haven't, and I'm unlikely > to do so in the near future as I'm travelling). I'm not sure Tony's > "Boot-tested-by" is still valid, and Florian's earlier set of tests > didn't show the issues of the initial backport. Correct, I was not testing any KVM path at all, which is why this did not show up as a problem for me, I am not really well equipped to perform KVM testing at the moment. -- Florian