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 1fOVIb-0004Ml-6H for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 31 May 2018 23:39:58 +0200 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93FFBB41E for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 21:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from treble (ovpn-120-231.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.231]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F7D5217B400 for ; Thu, 31 May 2018 21:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 16:39:48 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: [MODERATED] Re: spectrev1+ Message-ID: <20180531213653.ggt4b2s3rxsajd2r@treble> References: <20180531210258.GK12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180531210258.GK12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:02:58PM +0200, speck for Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 02:41:46PM -0400, speck for Jon Masters wrote: > > On 05/31/2018 08:50 AM, speck for Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > > > so, according to the information I have, this is likely to go public on > > > 2018-06-12 (it's the one referred to as "Bounds Check Bypass Store" in the > > > documents). > > > > Correct. We've been asking Intel to extend this while tooling is > > confirmed to be identifying all the potential sites, and are in > > discussions with other vendors to coordinate that ask. > > V1 was disclosed without even getting close to identifying all potential > sites, why is this V1+ thing more important? > > And I think smatch is the tool that is closest to giving useful results > for V1, I've not seen any other tool give even remotely sensible > results. At least for variant 1, Intel provided a Coverity script. The results may have been mostly false positives, but they were at least *something*. -- Josh