From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73] helo=mx1.redhat.com) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fKoWF-000551-FI for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 21 May 2018 19:22:47 +0200 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB4A401EF01 for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 17:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from washington.bos.jonmasters.org (ovpn-120-238.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.238]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A62872026DFD for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 17:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [MODERATED] Re: Date/Time? References: <20180519172627.GB1239@kroah.com> <20180521164655.GI17976@kroah.com> From: Jon Masters Message-ID: <0d7325d3-7882-7f24-a4e1-2df1259adaca@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:22:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180521164655.GI17976@kroah.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="B0qw92A3DowYKXHlhYmQS6a44mW1OO7xw"; protected-headers="v1" To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME encrypted message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --B0qw92A3DowYKXHlhYmQS6a44mW1OO7xw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/21/2018 12:46 PM, speck for Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 04:59:04PM -0400, speck for Jon Masters wrote: >> * ARM. They have a new SMCC (Secure Monitor Call) interface (similar t= o >> the one they did for branch predictor invalidation for Spectre-v2) tha= t >> will be wired up with kernel patches. Each of the vendors will impleme= nt >> the new SMCC in ATF (Arm Trusted Firmware) on their parts, using the >> best back-end mitigation (similar to microcode). Arm know to ping Thom= as >> with those patches, yet this has not happened yet (to my knowledge), n= or >> to Greg. Will has point on this in any case. He and the team are worki= ng >> hard on this. Still, I am saddened by these patches not being availabl= e >> prior to disclosure since this is not how we do things in the server >> space. But in anticipation that this would happen, I worked directly >> with Cavium (the only server-class CPU vendor with production RHEL >> support for which we need an answer tomorrow on our end) to create a >> firmware knob that can be used in the short term until this is fixed. = I >> also have pinged all of the Arm server vendors to let them know I expe= ct >> all of the SMCC wiring to be in place within the next few weeks. >=20 > Just heard from ARM, they are going to wait a week or so and then send > patches for inclusion in 4.18 and then send some backports for the olde= r > kernels then. The kernel patches are useless without firmware updates > and I don't know what the state of them are. They're on the keybase channel and have been receiving all of the updated patches. I also specifically sent them a copy previously. > They also complained that they can not finalize their patches as they d= o > not know what we agreed on for the prctl() interface. Which sucks as > that was hashed out here weeks ago. Nah. As Konrad says, several folk from Arm are on keybase. They also could have pinged us at any time if this was blocking progress. I know resources are tight and committed, but since none of us were pinged, I'm calling BS on that. I've also not been given even an early draft, nor know anyone who has, even though I asked their kernel lead working on this for a copy. I've made my peace with where we are today, sadly. > Another proof of how when we are not "allowed" to talk to the right > people, Linux users suffer. That is not ok. One of the problems does seem to be that we didn't have a dedicated list for v4 earlier. I think it's important to tackle that next time around. Jon. --=20 Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop --B0qw92A3DowYKXHlhYmQS6a44mW1OO7xw--