From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (193.142.43.55:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 10 Oct 2019 01:39:49 -0000 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iINQi-0006D8-OF for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 03:39:49 +0200 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 18:33:55 -0700 From: Pawan Gupta Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] NX 1 Message-ID: <20191010013355.GF11840@guptapadev.amr> References: <1561989149-17323-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1561989149-17323-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <88ac4542fa0f8d71d0ff672cc4693dcaec73db74.camel@decadent.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <88ac4542fa0f8d71d0ff672cc4693dcaec73db74.camel@decadent.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:01:21AM +0100, speck for Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2019-07-01 at 15:52 +0200, speck for Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > From: Pawan Gupta > > Subject: [PATCH 1/8] x86: Add ITLB_MULTIHIT bug infrastructure > [...] > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h > > @@ -385,5 +385,6 @@ > > #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 */ > > +#define X86_BUG_ITLB_MULTIHIT X86_BUG(21) /* CPU may incur MCE during certain page attribute changes */ > [...] > > So this is now going to need to be renumbered after X86_BUG_SWAPGS. > But the TAA series also allocates the next bug flag here. > > Then in other places there are textual conflicts between the two series > due to insertions in the same place. > > I believe both of the issues these are addressing have the same embargo > date, so it would be helpful to backporters if you could decide which > fix belongs first, even if they continue to be developed as separate > branches for now. (So far I've found it easier to apply NX before > TAA.) TAA is more recent than NX, so I guess NX should be applied before TAA. #define X86_BUG_SWAPGS X86_BUG(21) #define X86_BUG_ITLB_MULTIHIT X86_BUG(22) #define X86_BUG_TAA X86_BUG(23) Thanks, Pawan