On 01/18/2019 09:46 AM, Greg KH wrote:

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:02:21AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:

quoted

On 09/01/2019 23:55, Jeremy Linton wrote:

quoted

As suggested on the list, https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/4/282, there are
a number of cases where its useful for a system to avoid exporting a
sysfs entry for a given vulnerability. This set adds an architecture
specific callback which returns the bitmap of vulnerabilities the
architecture would like to advertise.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <redacted>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <redacted>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <redacted>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <redacted>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <redacted>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <redacted>
---
   drivers/base/cpu.c  | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
   include/linux/cpu.h |  7 +++++++
   2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c
index eb9443d5bae1..35f6dfb24cd6 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cpu.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c

@@ -561,6 +561,11 @@ static struct attribute *cpu_root_vulnerabilities_attrs[] = {
   	NULL
   };
+uint __weak arch_supported_vuln_attr_fields(void)
+{
+	return VULN_MELTDOWN|VULN_SPECTREV1|VULN_SPECTREV2|VULN_SSB|VULN_L1TF;
+}
+
   static const struct attribute_group cpu_root_vulnerabilities_group = {
   	.name  = "vulnerabilities",
   	.attrs = cpu_root_vulnerabilities_attrs,

@@ -568,6 +573,20 @@ static const struct attribute_group cpu_root_vulnerabilities_group = {
   static void __init cpu_register_vulnerabilities(void)
   {
+	int fld;
+	int max_fields = ARRAY_SIZE(cpu_root_vulnerabilities_attrs) - 1;
+	struct attribute **hd = cpu_root_vulnerabilities_attrs;
+	uint enabled_fields = arch_supported_vuln_attr_fields();
+
+	/* only enable entries requested by the arch code */
+	for (fld = 0; fld < max_fields; fld++) {
+		if (enabled_fields & 1 << fld) {
+			*hd = cpu_root_vulnerabilities_attrs[fld];
+			hd++;
+		}
+	}
+	*hd = NULL;
+

nit: Could we use "is_visible" callback in the attribute group to check this
dynamically ?

You should, that is what it is there for.

Yes, its a good suggestion. OTOH, I think the plan is to drop this 
functionality all together by removing the ability to build kernels 
without the vulnerability checking/processor white lists. That will 
simplify some of the #ifdef'ing going on as well.





_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel