Re: [PATCH] clarify how insecure CPU is

[Pavel Machek]

On Tue 2018-01-09 00:44:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > On Mon 2018-01-08 21:27:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > First, what is going on with X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E
> > > > ? They seem to refer to the same bug, perhaps comment should mention
> > > > that? (Do we need two flags for one bug?)
> > > > 
> > > > Next, maybe X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE is a bit too generic? This seems to
> > > > address "Meltdown" problem, but not "Spectre". Should it be limited to
> > > > PPro and newer Intel CPUs?
> > > > 
> > > > Should another erratum be added for "Spectre"? This is present even on
> > > > AMD CPUs, but should not be present in 486, maybe Pentium, and some
> > > > Atom chips?
> > > > 
> > > > Plus... is this reasonable interface?
> > > > 
> > > > bugs		: cpu_insecure
> > > 
> > > We've renamed it to meltdown already and added spectre_v1/v2 bits for the
> > > rest of the mess.
> > 
> > Could you explain (best with code comment) what is going on with
> > X86_BUG_AMD_E400 and X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E ? They seem to refer to the
> > same bug.
> 
> Sorry, that;s really not the time for this.

Ok, is there better time now? The code is a bit confusing...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature