Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 06:23:25 -0800 (PST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>
cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/speculation: Add support for STIBP always-on
 preferred mode
In-Reply-To: <38aca18b-4312-5e03-fdd9-86e47c332e44@amd.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812120621130.30793@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20181211224615.5373.65736.stgit@tlendack-t1.amdoffice.net> <20181212000518.GX27375@zn.tnic> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1812111910520.22893@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <38aca18b-4312-5e03-fdd9-86e47c332e44@amd.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> On 12/11/2018 09:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> I still don't like that separate stibp_always_on variable when we can do
> >> all the querying just by using mode and X86_FEATURE_AMD_STIBP_ALWAYS_ON.
> > 
> > Hmmm. I've not seen the V1 of this (it's not in my inbox) but the v1->v2
> > changes contain:
> 
> That's strange, you were on the cc: list. Anyway, here's a link to the
> first version: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/11/1248

Must have been my sleep deprived brain. Found it now :) Sorry for not
paying attention back then.

> >>> - Removed explicit SPECTRE_V2_USER_STRICT_PREFERRED mode
> > 
> > Now I really have to ask why?
> > 
> > Neither the extra variable nor the cpu feature check are pretty. An
> > explicit mode is way better in terms of code clarity and you get the proper
> > printout via spectre_v2_user_strings.
> > 
> > Hmm?
> 
> That is what the first version did. See if that's in-line with what
> you're thinking.

Yes, though I'm not too fond about the preferred wording, but can't come up
with anything better.

Thanks,

	tglx