From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: "Anand K. Mistry" <amistry@google.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Anthony Steinhauser <asteinhauser@google.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Vineela Tummalapalli <vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/speculation: Allow IBPB to be conditionally enabled on CPUs with always-on STIBP
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:31:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201104233143.GA2496945@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201103105757.GC6310@zn.tnic>
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:57:57AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 11:02:10AM +1100, Anand K. Mistry wrote:
> > > I like the idea of passing in the mode you want to check, but it appears
> > > they are never used independently. The ibpb and stibp modes are always
> > > checked together in one of the if statements below, so you could make this
> > > a function that checks both modes and just have a single call. I'll leave
> > > that up to the maintainers to see what is preferred.
> >
> > I can see both sides to this. Personally, I think I prefer it as-is
> > since I think it improves readability a bit by making the conditions
> > less complicated whilst not hiding too many details. I'll wait to see
> > what others say before changing this one.
>
> Yes, but if you make it a single function with a descriptive name, you'd
> make the call sites even more readable:
>
> if (!is_spec_ib_conditional(..))
> bla;
>
> or
>
> if (!is_spec_ib_user_controlled(..))
> blu;
>
> and that function should simply check both spectre_v2_user_ibpb *and*
> spectre_v2_user_stibp in one go.
>
> Why should we do that?
>
> Exactly because you both got your brains twisted just from looking at
> this. Because this mitigation crap is such an ugly and complex maze that
> we would take even the smallest simplification any day of the week!
>
> Welcome to my life since meltdown. Brain twist feels good, doesn't it?
>
> :-)))
I hate the maze too. In theory we can get rid of STIBP if/when
core-scheduling is enabled because the cross-CPU branch predictor poisioning
would not be possible. Maybe that will simplify the maze a bit.
thanks,
- Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-04 23:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-29 6:51 [PATCH 0/1] x86/speculation: Allow IBPB to be conditionally enabled on CPUs with always-on STIBP Anand K Mistry
2020-10-29 6:51 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Anand K Mistry
2020-10-31 15:05 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-11-02 0:02 ` Anand K. Mistry
2020-11-03 10:57 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-04 23:31 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2020-11-05 1:13 ` Anand K. Mistry
2020-10-31 14:50 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Tom Lendacky
2020-11-01 23:57 ` Anand K. Mistry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201104233143.GA2496945@google.com \
--to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=amistry@google.com \
--cc=asteinhauser@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vineela.tummalapalli@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).