more sampling fun 1

From: mark gross <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add capability to specify a range of steppings in the

Intel has produced processors with the same CPUID family+model. Code may need to check the stepping when programming model specific behavior.

Add an API to allow easy specification of stepping or range of steppings with a 16 bit bitmask.

Update cpu_vuln_whitelist using this new API.

I implemented this in the way I did to avoid modifying x86_cpu_id as that structure is an exported ABI and any change would impact user mode code using the structure.

Signed-off-by mark gross <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by tony luck <[email protected]>

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/cpu_device_id.h | 12 ++++++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c         | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/match.c          | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Quoted 15 lines · speck for mark gross

From: mark gross <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add capability to specify a range of steppings in the

Intel has produced processors with the same CPUID family+model. Code may need to check the stepping when programming model specific behavior.

Add an API to allow easy specification of stepping or range of steppings with a 16 bit bitmask.

Update cpu_vuln_whitelist using this new API.

I implemented this in the way I did to avoid modifying x86_cpu_id as that structure is an exported ABI and any change would impact user mode code using the structure.

Quoted 7 lines

Signed-off-by mark gross <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by tony luck <[email protected]>

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/cpu_device_id.h | 12 ++++++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c         | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/match.c          | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Why isn't this sent to lkml like a normal patch?

Because it is under embargo until May 12th.

Quoted 1 line · speck for Andrew Cooper

Because it is under embargo until May 12th.

Maybe 2/2 is - which I don't have in my mbox - but by staring only at 1/2 there's nothing to embargo there AFAICT.

Quoted 5 lines · speck for Borislav Petkov

Quoted 1 line · speck for Andrew Cooper

Because it is under embargo until May 12th.

Maybe 2/2 is - which I don't have in my mbox - but by staring only at 1/2 there's nothing to embargo there AFAICT.

Right, but a lone patch (coming pre-reviewed even!) adding stepping support into the speculative model checking is going to be about as subtle as the KPTI work was :)

Quoted 15 lines · speck for mark gross

From: mark gross <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add capability to specify a range of steppings in the

Intel has produced processors with the same CPUID family+model. Code may need to check the stepping when programming model specific behavior.

Add an API to allow easy specification of stepping or range of steppings with a 16 bit bitmask.

Update cpu_vuln_whitelist using this new API.

I implemented this in the way I did to avoid modifying x86_cpu_id as that structure is an exported ABI and any change would impact user mode code using the structure.

Quoted 7 lines

Signed-off-by mark gross <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by tony luck <[email protected]>

---
 arch/x86/include/asm/cpu_device_id.h | 12 ++++++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c         | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/match.c          | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Why isn't this sent to lkml like a normal patch?

Signature · 6 lines

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg
-- 

Because its only needed in the context of the WIP mitigation patch that I'm having issues sending propperly.

Sigh, I guess I'll just put it in a reply.

Quoted 4 lines · speck for mark gross

Because its only needed in the context of the WIP mitigation patch that I'm having issues sending propperly.

Sigh, I guess I'll just put it in a reply.

Actually, your 2/2 was being held by the ML because you've sent, reportedly, not from the mail address you're subscribed with, to speck@. It should be fixed now because Thomas added an alias for your other mail address.

Signature · 6 lines

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg
-- 

Quoted 4 lines · speck for mark gross

Because its only needed in the context of the WIP mitigation patch that I'm having issues sending propperly.

Sigh, I guess I'll just put it in a reply.

Actually, your 2/2 was being held by the ML because you've sent, reportedly, not from the mail address you're subscribed with, to speck@. It should be fixed now because Thomas added an alias for your other mail address.