Re: cpu_no_speculation omissions?

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 10:28 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 07/16/2018 09:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > At least the Centerton (late-generation Bonnell uarch) Atom
> > > > family is
> > > > omitted from the cpu_no_speculation table added by commit
> > > > fec9434a12f3
> > > > to arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c. Is this intentional? Would a
> > > > patch
> > > > adding it and possibly other omissions be welcome?
> > > 
> > > Probably. Dave?
> > 
> > IIRC, Alan Cox was compiling a list on what is affected vs. not.  He
> > would know way better than I.
> 
> The pre Silvermont atom cores are in order. When I did the original
> list I didn't bother with all the 32bit cores as we didn't have any
> 32bit mitigations then.

At least we should give the users that warm and fuzzy feeling that they are
not affected.

Thanks,

	tglx