MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACYkzJ5L9MLuE5Jz+z5-NJCCrUqTbgKQkXSqnQnCfTD_WNA7_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACYkzJ6n=-tobhX0ONQhjHSgmnNjWnNe_dZnEOGtD8Y6S3RHbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230220163442.7fmaeef3oqci4ee3@treble> <Y/Ox3MJZF1Yb7b6y@zn.tnic>
 <20230220175929.2laflfb2met6y3kc@treble> <CACYkzJ71xqzY6-wL+YShcL+d6ugzcdFHr6tbYWWE_ep52+RBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230220182717.uzrym2gtavlbjbxo@treble> <Y/O9U4KFtXE8Yoyt@zn.tnic>
 <20230220190908.gfd2c4tuzeb7cft6@treble> <CACYkzJ58HoDz+hpLzWf0PZQX7ykWqB6-uQR9HVb5YqaF-rdScA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230220193526.if5zfd6j7sbjpf7g@treble>
In-Reply-To: <20230220193526.if5zfd6j7sbjpf7g@treble>
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:38:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ5hoSa7moeRfqVvz=XDegpLN63iWp4rXpXNxjMXvwAxtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Allow STIBP with IBRS
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pjt@google.com, evn@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com, kim.phillips@amd.com,
        alexandre.chartre@oracle.com, daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_Oliveira?= <joseloliveira11@gmail.com>,
        Rodrigo Branco <rodrigo@kernelhacking.com>,
        Alexandra Sandulescu <aesa@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:35 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:16:45AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell, that document was never updated to describe
> > > spectre_v2=ibrs in the first place.  That would be a whole 'nother patch
> > > which I'm not volunteering for.  Nice try ;-)
> >
> > This should at least be documented in the code.
> >
> > Now it seems like it is not okay to work with people on the list and
> > just send revisions bypassing them. This is not something we do in the
> > kernel area I come from (an x86 favorite ;)).  Please feel free to go
> > with Josh's version (or its future revisions). If you want me to
> > re-spin with some comments, happy to. If not, please do at least give
> > me Reported-by here.
>
> It's a common practice even outside of x86.  I'd recommend not taking it
> personally.  In the end it's all about what produces better code.
>
> And please don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes it takes a bad
> patch to inspire a better one.  I mean that with no disrespect, I myself
> have sent many bad patches.

Appreciate the clarification! Thank you so much.

>
> And if you don't like my patch, fine, send a v2...

I can also take a stab at the Documentation piece, this will make
Boris happy too. Will send a v2 later today.

>
> --
> Josh