Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:44:58 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pjt@google.com, evn@google.com,
        jpoimboe@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, 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,
        corbet@lwn.net, bp@suse.de, linyujun809@huawei.com,
        jmattson@google.com,
        =?utf-8?B?Sm9zw6k=?= Oliveira <joseloliveira11@gmail.com>,
        Rodrigo Branco <rodrigo@kernelhacking.com>,
        Alexandra Sandulescu <aesa@google.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/speculation: Allow enabling STIBP with legacy
 IBRS
Message-ID: <Y/dfyh1U/qDR1Ymw@zn.tnic>
References: <20230221184908.2349578-1-kpsingh@kernel.org>
 <Y/YJisQdorH1aAKV@zn.tnic>
 <CACYkzJ4cSA5xFScgS=WTc6tPis-vUCtYkh3LyEr8EkXoDCm-uA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y/ZVaBKwbWUbF7u+@zn.tnic>
 <CACYkzJ4WigzaOCR4V9=e60ka=NNncWRB-j78DLRuzdSOZXvwrA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACYkzJ4WigzaOCR4V9=e60ka=NNncWRB-j78DLRuzdSOZXvwrA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 11:41:59AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
> Sure, I think the docs do already cover it,

I mean *our docs*. The stuff you're adding in your patch 2.

> but I sort of disagree with your statement around the commit message.
> I feel the more context you can add in the commit message, the better
> it is.

That's ofc wrong. And you'll find that out when you do git archeology
and you come across a huuuge wall of text explaining the world and some
more.

No, commit messages should be to the point with a structure similar to
something like this:

1. Prepare the context for the explanation briefly.

2. Explain the problem at hand.

3. "It happens because of <...>"

4. "Fix it by doing X"

5. "(Potentially do Y)."

concentrating on *why* the fix is being done.

> When I am looking at the change log, it would be helpful to have the
> information that I mentioned in the Q&A. Small things like, "eIBRS
> needs the IBRS bit set which also enables cross-thread protections" is
> a very important context for this patch IMHO. Without this one is just
> left head scratching and scrambling to read lengthy docs and processor
> manuals.

Yes, that's why you say in the commit message: "For more details, see
Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst." where:

1. you can explain in a lot more detail

2. put it in place where people can find it *easily*

> This sort of loosely implies that the IBRS bit also enables
> cross-thread protections. Can you atleast add this one explicitly?
> 
> "Setting the IBRS bit also enables cross thread protections"

Ok.

> Not at the stage when the kernel decides to drop the STIBP protection
> when eIBRS is enabled.

We can't dump every possible interaction between the mitigations. It is
a huge mess already. But I'm open to looking at improvements of the
situation *and* documenting stuff as we go.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette