Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:25:28 -0700
From:   Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Ricardo =?utf-8?Q?Ca=C3=B1uelo?= <ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Steve Beattie <sbeattie@ubuntu.com>, kernel@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/speculation/srbds: do not try to turn mitigation
 off when not supported
Message-ID: <20220331162528.t5vkfvmkygkiqpcs@guptapa-desk>
References: <20220330082026.1549073-1-ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com>
 <YkS3OKLS1Cixs9up@zn.tnic>
 <87o81mzhoh.fsf@rcn-XPS-13-9305.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
 <20220331084536.y4sl7qcfzltsnnew@guptapa-desk>
 <87lewqz2dp.fsf@rcn-XPS-13-9305.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
 <YkXH5+Js+qRbqou9@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <YkXH5+Js+qRbqou9@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 05:25:27PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
>> Just to clarify, this changes the behavior wrt the hypervisor case:
>> currently it just bails out of update_srbds_msr(), with your patch it'd
>> clear RNGDS_MITG_DIS from MSR_IA32_MCU_OPT_CTRL. Is that what you
>> intended?

Yes, this should be fine as update_srbds_msr() would also check for
X86_FEATURE_SRBDS_CTRL. If a hypervisor doesn't want a guest to write to
the MSR it should not export X86_FEATURE_SRBDS_CTRL.

>Just do the simple thing I pasted earlier - no need to rewrite the whole
>function for no good reason.

I was trying to address earlier comment on split logic in two functions.
I am okay with keeping it as is (and just adding X86_FEATURE_SRBDS_CTRL
check in update_srbds_msr()).

Thanks,
Pawan