Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:50:59 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc:     Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>, tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>, leit@meta.com,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for each mitigation
Message-ID: <ZSkhE2GWfGRW+9Hh@gmail.com>
References: <20231010103028.4192223-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <ZSca08rnmZfkONEH@gmail.com>
 <ZSfucR6docdnLznb@gmail.com>
 <20231012170548.o5vi4kgpvpjyld7s@treble>
 <ZShALJDaxJ9VJvek@gmail.com>
 <20231012204347.4aei5jr64fsv2iv5@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231012204347.4aei5jr64fsv2iv5@treble>
Precedence: bulk


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 08:51:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Another way to avoid ifdeffery:
> > > 
> > > static enum retbleed_mitigation_cmd retbleed_cmd __ro_after_init =
> > > 	IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETBLEED) ? RETBLEED_CMD_AUTO : RETBLEED_CMD_OFF;
> > 
> > I think we could make it a simple:
> > 
> > 	static enum retbleed_mitigation_cmd retbleed_cmd __ro_after_init = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETBLEED);
> > 
> > Because RETBLEED_CMD_AUTO && RETBLEED_CMD_OFF maps naturally to 1 and 0. 
> > Maybe add a comment to the enum to maintain this property in the future 
> > too.
> 
> Hm, that both obfuscates the default and makes it fragile.  The fact
> that it would need a comment to try to prevent breaking it in the future
> is a clue that maybe we shouldn't do it ;-)

Can be enforced with BUILD_BUG_ON().

Thanks,

	Ingo