On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 16:35, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 07/06/2022 15:32, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 16:30, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24/05/2022 18:03, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 03:50:17PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> >>>> Hi Ard,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28/03/2022 14:47, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>>>> The Spectre-BHB mitigations were inadvertently left disabled for
> >>>>> Cortex-A15, due to the fact that cpu_v7_bugs_init() is not called in
> >>>>> that case. So fix that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> arch/arm/mm/proc-v7-bugs.c | 1 +
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7-bugs.c b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7-bugs.c
> >>>>> index 06dbfb968182..fb9f3eb6bf48 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7-bugs.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/proc-v7-bugs.c
> >>>>> @@ -288,6 +288,7 @@ void cpu_v7_ca15_ibe(void)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> if (check_spectre_auxcr(this_cpu_ptr(&spectre_warned), BIT(0)))
> >>>>> cpu_v7_spectre_v2_init();
> >>>>> + cpu_v7_spectre_bhb_init();
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> void cpu_v7_bugs_init(void)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Since this patch has been merged, I am seeing a ton of messages when booting
> >>>> Linux on tegra124-jetson-tk1 ...
> >>>>
> >>>> [ 1233.327547] CPU0: Spectre BHB: using loop workaround
> >>>> [ 1233.327795] CPU1: Spectre BHB: using loop workaround
> >>>> [ 1233.328270] CPU1: Spectre BHB: using loop workaround
> >>>
> >>> Now that you mention this, I vaguely remember some email on the list a
> >>> while ago about this being caused by something like cpuidle - but I'm
> >>> unable to find it now.
> >>>
> >>>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20220519161310.1489625-1-dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
> >>>
> >>> That was probably it.
> >>>
> >>> We can't really do this for the other print, because the system status
> >>> can change as a result of CPUs being brought online. :(
> >>>
> >>
> >> Does it make sense to only print the message if/when the method changes
> >> as opposed to every time the CPUs are brought online? That way, there
> >> would still be at least one print showing the current method. I believe
> >> that is what Ard had proposed.
> >>
> >
> > A fix for this issue is already in linux-next:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=bafa10435c4f34f4b9bda8fc7ee6e4330ebca3ea
>
>
> Ah wonderful! Sorry I had missed that. Once merged can we pull into
> stable as well?
>
Yes. It has a fixes: tag so it will most likely get picked up
automatically, but feel free to remind the -stable maintainers once
this patch is merged by Linus.
