Date:   Sat, 25 Feb 2023 15:43:30 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/CPU/AMD: Make sure EFER[AIBRSE] is set
Message-ID: <20230225234330.caznxpkjhq3u5tls@treble>
References: <20230224185257.o3mcmloei5zqu7wa@treble>
 <Y/knUC0s+rg6ef2r@zn.tnic>
 <Y/k/ZXUXOFiBhOiI@zn.tnic>
 <20230225000931.wrednfun4jifkqau@treble>
 <Y/lUSC5x2ZkTIGu4@zn.tnic>
 <20230225005221.425yahqvxb57c43x@desk>
 <20230225013202.g7tibykvylprsxs5@treble>
 <Y/n9XcbnCzWv2Vul@zn.tnic>
 <20230225172832.sqdd7dejkkmjxpt6@treble>
 <Y/qSJd1Z3ABEJPPD@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y/qSJd1Z3ABEJPPD@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:56:37PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 09:28:32AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > All the other "bug" code in identify_secondary_cpu() *is*
> > vendor-specific.
> 
> I meant "vendor-specific" in the sense that AMD code goes to amd.c, etc.

Hm?  So code in bugs.c is not vendor-specific?  That seems circular and
I don't get your point.

> As to the identify_secondary_cpu()  code - I didn't like it being
> slapped there either but it got stuck in there hastily during the
> mitigations upstreaming as back then we had bigger fish to fry than
> paying too much attention to clean design...

Right, so rather than spreading all the bug-related MSR logic around,
just do it in one spot.

-- 
Josh