On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:05:57 -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote: > Recently I realized that a device with some Qualcomm Kryo 4xx cores > reported in `lscpu` that it was _not_ vulnerable to Spectre BHB. This > seemed unlikely to me. > > I wrote up a patch series to attempt (with a lot of guesswork) to add > Qualcomm cores to the tables governing how the Spectre BHB mitigation > worked. > > [...] Applied to arm64 (for-next/spectre-bhb-assume-vulnerable), thanks! As per Will's suggestion at the end of last year: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241219175128.GA25477@willie-the-truck/ Doug has reworked the code to assume vulnerable by default. James did suggest some splitting of patch 2 but given that Doug doesn't have time for a respin I decided to queue the patches. If anyone has a strong opinion, please let me know (and reworking the series is welcomed). [1/5] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/ed1ce841245d [2/5] arm64: errata: Assume that unknown CPUs _are_ vulnerable to Spectre BHB https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/e403e8538359 [3/5] arm64: errata: Add KRYO 2XX/3XX/4XX silver cores to Spectre BHB safe list https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/0c9fc6e652cd [4/5] arm64: cputype: Add MIDR_CORTEX_A76AE https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/a9b5bd81b294 [5/5] arm64: errata: Add newer ARM cores to the spectre_bhb_loop_affected() lists https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/a5951389e58d -- Catalin
