diff mbox series

[4.19,102/114] arm64: ssbs: Dont treat CPUs with SSBS as unaffected by SSB

Message ID 20191010083613.611304454@linuxfoundation.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series None | expand

Commit Message

Greg KH Oct. 10, 2019, 8:36 a.m. UTC 
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

[ Upstream commit eb337cdfcd5dd3b10522c2f34140a73a4c285c30 ]

SSBS provides a relatively cheap mitigation for SSB, but it is still a
mitigation and its presence does not indicate that the CPU is unaffected
by the vulnerability.

Tweak the mitigation logic so that we report the correct string in sysfs.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c |   10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff mbox series

Patch

--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
@@ -341,15 +341,17 @@  static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const st
 
 	WARN_ON(scope != SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU || preemptible());
 
+	/* delay setting __ssb_safe until we get a firmware response */
+	if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), entry->midr_range_list))
+		this_cpu_safe = true;
+
 	if (this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_SSBS)) {
+		if (!this_cpu_safe)
+			__ssb_safe = false;
 		required = false;
 		goto out_printmsg;
 	}
 
-	/* delay setting __ssb_safe until we get a firmware response */
-	if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), entry->midr_range_list))
-		this_cpu_safe = true;
-
 	if (psci_ops.smccc_version == SMCCC_VERSION_1_0) {
 		ssbd_state = ARM64_SSBD_UNKNOWN;
 		if (!this_cpu_safe)