On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 06:14:34PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 27/02/2019 01:05, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > There are various reasons, including bencmarking, to disable spectrev2
> > mitigation on a machine. Provide a command-line to do so.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> > index 9950bb0cbd52..d2b2c69d31bb 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> > @@ -220,6 +220,14 @@ static void qcom_link_stack_sanitization(void)
> > : "=&r" (tmp));
> > }
> > +static bool __nospectre_v2;
> > +static int __init parse_nospectre_v2(char *str)
> > +{
> > + __nospectre_v2 = true;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +early_param("nospectre_v2", parse_nospectre_v2);
> > +
> > static void
> > enable_smccc_arch_workaround_1(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
> > {
> > @@ -231,6 +239,11 @@ enable_smccc_arch_workaround_1(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
> > if (!entry->matches(entry, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU))
> > return;
> > + if (__nospectre_v2) {
> > + pr_info_once("spectrev2 mitigation disabled by command line option\n");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Could we not disable the "cap" altogether instead, rather than disabling the
> work around ? Or do we need that information ?
There are a few ideas here but I think we settled on always reporting in
sysfs even if the mitigation is disabled in .config. So I guess we need
the "cap" around for the reporting part.
--
Catalin
