Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation/spectre_v2: Exclude Zhaoxin CPUs from SPECTRE_V2

[Thomas Gleixner]

Tony,

Tony W Wang-oc <TonyWWang-oc@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> @@ -1023,6 +1023,7 @@ static void identify_cpu_without_cpuid(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  #define MSBDS_ONLY		BIT(5)
>  #define NO_SWAPGS		BIT(6)
>  #define NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT	BIT(7)
> +#define NO_SPECTRE_V2		BIT(8)
>  
>  #define VULNWL(_vendor, _family, _model, _whitelist)	\
>  	{ X86_VENDOR_##_vendor, _family, _model, X86_FEATURE_ANY, _whitelist }
> @@ -1084,6 +1085,10 @@ static const __initconst struct x86_cpu_id cpu_vuln_whitelist[] = {
>  	/* FAMILY_ANY must be last, otherwise 0x0f - 0x12 matches won't work */
>  	VULNWL_AMD(X86_FAMILY_ANY,	NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT),
>  	VULNWL_HYGON(X86_FAMILY_ANY,	NO_MELTDOWN | NO_L1TF | NO_MDS | NO_SWAPGS | NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT),
> +
> +	/* Zhaoxin Family 7 */
> +	VULNWL(CENTAUR,	7, X86_MODEL_ANY,	NO_SPECTRE_V2),
> +	VULNWL(ZHAOXIN,	7, X86_MODEL_ANY,	NO_SPECTRE_V2),
>  	{}
>  };
>  
> @@ -1116,7 +1121,9 @@ static void __init cpu_set_bug_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  		return;
>  
>  	setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V1);
> -	setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2);
> +
> +	if (!cpu_matches(NO_SPECTRE_V2))
> +		setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V2);

That's way better. But as you might have noticed yourself this conflicts
with the other patch which excludes these machines from the SWAPGS bug.

Granted it's a trivial conflict, but maintainers are not there to mop up
the mess others create. So the right thing here is to resend both
patches as a patch series with the conflict properly resolved.

Thanks,

        tglx