linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH PATCH 9/9] x86/rfds: Exclude P-only parts from the RFDS affected list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b34d6b95-64ec-4647-9eab-374dbcc25f8a@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 07:33:13 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 x86@...nel.org
Cc: daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
 Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
 Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PATCH 9/9] x86/rfds: Exclude P-only parts from the RFDS
 affected list

On 6/17/24 02:12, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> +#define VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE(vfm, cpu_type, issues)	\
> +	X86_MATCH_VFM_CPU_TYPE(INTEL_##vfm, cpu_type, issues)
> +
...
>  	/* Match more than Vendor/Family/Model */
>  	VULNBL_INTEL_STEPPINGS(COMETLAKE_L,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0x0),	MMIO | RETBLEED),
>  	VULNBL_INTEL	      (COMETLAKE_L,					MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED | GDS),
> +	VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE (RAPTORLAKE,	X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ATOM,	RFDS),
> +	VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE (ALDERLAKE,	X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ATOM,	RFDS),

Could we tweak this a bit to make it more compact?  For instance, if we
did this:

#define VULNBL_INTEL_TYPE(vfm, cpu_type, issues)	\
		X86_MATCH_VFM_CPU_TYPE(INTEL_##vfm,	\
		X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_##cpu_type,		\	
		issues)

We'd end up with entries like this:

	VULNBL_INTEL_TYPE (ALDERLAKE,	ATOM,	RFDS),

I guess "TYPE" is a _bit_ ambiguous.  But it's also pretty patently
obvious what's going on versus something like this:

	VULNBL_INTEL	  (COMETLAKE_L,	MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED...),

Getting rid of the "X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_" string in the table is low
hanging fruit.  I don't feel as strongly about changing the new macro name.