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]

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:24:54 -0700
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: 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,
	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 Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 07:33:13AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.

It makes sense to me, atleast getting rid of X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ in
X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ATOM.