Hi, On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 9:52 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 11:14:20AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 8:43 AM James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Arm have recently updated that table of CPUs > > > with extra entries (thanks for picking those up!) - but now that patch can't be easily > > > applied to older kernels. > > > I suspect making the reporting assuming-vulnerable may make other CPUs come out of the > > > wood work too... > > > > > > Could we avoid changing this unless we really need to? > > > > Will / Catalin: Do either of you have an opinion here? > > Is this about whether to report "vulnerable" for unknown CPUs? I think > Will suggested this: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241219175128.GA25477@willie-the-truck/ Right. The patch in its current form is in direct response to what Will requested and then subsequent feedback on the mailing lists from Julius Werner. > That said, some patch splitting will help to make review easier. Should > such change be back-portable as well? I think so, it's not only for CPUs > we'll see in the future. Personally, I don't think the patch will be terribly hard to backport as-is. I would expect it to just cherry-pick cleanly since it only touches spectre code and I'd imagine all that stuff is being backported verbatim. I did at least confirm that it applies cleanly to v5.15.178 (I didn't try compiling though). I guess there are conflicts back to v5.10.234, though... While I've had plenty of time to work on this patch in the last three months since I posted the early versions, recently my assignments at work have changed and I have a lot less time to work on this patch series. If breaking this up is blocking this patch from landing then I'll try to find some time in the next month or two to do it. Let me know. -Doug
