3.16.56-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> commit edfbae53dab8348fca778531be9f4855d2ca0360 upstream. Reflect the presence of get_user(), __get_user(), and 'syscall' protections in sysfs. The expectation is that new and better tooling will allow the kernel to grow more usages of array_index_nospec(), for now, only claim mitigation for __user pointer de-references. Reported-by: Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> Cc: linux-a...@vger.kernel.org Cc: kernel-harden...@lists.openwall.com Cc: gre...@linuxfoundation.org Cc: torva...@linux-foundation.org Cc: a...@linux.intel.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/151727420158.33451.11658324346540434635.st...@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> --- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_spectre_v1(struct devic { if (!boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_SPECTRE_V1)) return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n"); - return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n"); + return sprintf(buf, "Mitigation: __user pointer sanitization\n"); } ssize_t cpu_show_spectre_v2(struct device *dev,
