[MODERATED] Re: [patch V6 04/14] MDS basics 4

Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.lore.historical-speck
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 01/03/2019 21:47, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Subject: [patch V6 04/14] x86/speculation/mds: Add BUG_MSBDS_ONLY
> From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
>
> This bug bit is set on CPUs which are only affected by Microarchitectural
> Store Buffer Data Sampling (MSBDS) and not by any other MDS variant.
>
> This is important because the Store Buffers are partitioned between
> Hyper-Threads so cross thread forwarding is not possible. But if a thread
> enters or exits a sleep state the store buffer is repartitioned which can
> expose data from one thread to the other. This transition can be mitigated.
>
> That means that for CPUs which are only affected by MSBDS SMT can be
> enabled, if the CPU is not affected by other SMT sensitive vulnerabilities,
> e.g. L1TF. The XEON PHI variants fall into that category.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h |    1 +
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c       |   10 +++++++---
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> @@ -383,5 +383,6 @@
>  #define X86_BUG_SPEC_STORE_BYPASS	X86_BUG(17) /* CPU is affected by speculative store bypass attack */
>  #define X86_BUG_L1TF			X86_BUG(18) /* CPU is affected by L1 Terminal Fault */
>  #define X86_BUG_MDS			X86_BUG(19) /* CPU is affected by Microarchitectural data sampling */
> +#define X86_BUG_MSBDS_ONLY		X86_BUG(20) /* CPU is only affected by the  MSDBS variant of BUG_MDS */
>  
>  #endif /* _ASM_X86_CPUFEATURES_H */
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> @@ -953,6 +953,7 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(s
>  #define NO_SSB		BIT(2)
>  #define NO_L1TF		BIT(3)
>  #define NO_MDS		BIT(4)
> +#define MSBDS_ONLY	BIT(5)
>  
>  #define VULNWL(_vendor, _family, _model, _whitelist)	\
>  	{ X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist }
> @@ -983,8 +984,8 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_
>  	VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SILVERMONT_X,		NO_SSB | NO_L1TF),
>  	VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_SILVERMONT_MID,	NO_SSB | NO_L1TF),
>  	VULNWL_INTEL(ATOM_AIRMONT,		NO_SSB | NO_L1TF),
> -	VULNWL_INTEL(XEON_PHI_KNL,		NO_SSB | NO_L1TF),
> -	VULNWL_INTEL(XEON_PHI_KNM,		NO_SSB | NO_L1TF),
> +	VULNWL_INTEL(XEON_PHI_KNL,		NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | MSBDS_ONLY),
> +	VULNWL_INTEL(XEON_PHI_KNM,		NO_SSB | NO_L1TF | MSBDS_ONLY),

Looking at the table in the magic PDF, Silvermont/Airmont are MDBDS_ONLY
as well.

The model numbers listed in the Silvermont/Airmont category are 37, 4a,
4c, 4d, 5a, 5d, 6e, 65, 75.

The first 5 of those models match up with Linux's Silvermont/Airmont
names, while the last 4 are unknown.  I can't locate them anywhere and
have requested clarification.

~Andrew
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.