Commit fe22ea56 authored by Will Deacon's avatar Will Deacon Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman

arm64: ssbs: Don't treat CPUs with SSBS as unaffected by SSB

[ Upstream commit eb337cdf ]

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: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
parent dada3a4a
......@@ -341,15 +341,17 @@ static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
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)
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment