Hi Viresh, On 14/06/2019 04:07, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Hello, > > Here is an attempt to backport arm64 spectre patches to v4.4 stable > tree. > > I have started this backport with Mark Rutland's backport of Spectre to > 4.9 [1] and tried applying the upstream version of them over 4.4 and > resolved conflicts by checking how they have been resolved in 4.9. > > I had to pick few extra upstream patches to avoid unnecessary conflicts > (upstream commit ids mentioned): > > a842789837c0 arm64: remove duplicate macro __KERNEL__ check > 64f8ebaf115b mm/kasan: add API to check memory regions > bffe1baff5d5 arm64: kasan: instrument user memory access API > 92406f0cc9e3 arm64: cpufeature: Add scope for capability check > 9eb8a2cdf65c arm64: cputype info for Broadcom Vulcan > 0d90718871fe arm64: cputype: Add MIDR values for Cavium ThunderX2 CPUs > 98dd64f34f47 ARM: 8478/2: arm/arm64: add arm-smccc > > > I had to drop few patches as well as they weren't getting applied > properly due to missing files/features (upstream commit id mentioned): > > 93f339ef4175 arm64: cpufeature: __this_cpu_has_cap() shouldn't stop early > 3c31fa5a06b4 arm64: Run enable method for errata work arounds on late CPUs > 6840bdd73d07 arm64: KVM: Use per-CPU vector when BP hardening is enabled > 90348689d500 arm64: KVM: Make PSCI_VERSION a fast path > > > Since v4.4 doesn't contain arch/arm/kvm/hyp/switch.c file, changes for > it are dropped from some of the patches. The commit log of specific > patches are updated with this information. > > Also for commit id (from 4.9 stable): > c24c205d2528 arm64: Add ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 BP hardening support > > I have dropped arch/arm64/crypto/sha256-core.S and sha512-core.S files > as they weren't part of the upstream commit. Not sure why it was > included by Mark as the commit log doesn't provide any reasoning for it. > > The patches in this series are pushed here [2]. > > This is only build/boot tested by me as I don't have access to the > required test-suite which can verify spectre mitigations. > > @Julien: Can you please help reviewing / testing them ? Thanks. > Since there were seems to be a lot of changes between the current branch and the patch series you posted, it would probably be good to post a new version on the mailing list once you believe you have them in a good shape. Testing the branch is fine, but reviewing is definitely something that should happen on patches posted on the mailing list. Thanks, -- Julien Thierry
