Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:08:15 -0700
From:   Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, mingo@kernel.org,
        jpoimboe@kernel.org
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, tglx@linutronix.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>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        gustavold@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for each mitigation
Message-ID: <ZS6jX9v+QBsKyavE@gmail.com>
References: <20231010103028.4192223-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <20231011044252.42bplzjsam3qsasz@treble>
 <20231011190317.GDZSbxdd5TuCIp5+JN@fat_crate.local>
 <20231011220325.5uje4xnfxuccumm7@treble>
 <20231012072920.GAZSegUJkwHbcernQo@fat_crate.local>
 <ZS0Lfy8LUdRG3ca0@gmail.com>
 <20231016124654.GDZS0wvqJlsf+iVAeu@fat_crate.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231016124654.GDZS0wvqJlsf+iVAeu@fat_crate.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> IOW, I don't see the particular reason for having those namespaced. But
> since you and Josh care so much and I don't - not that much :-) - and
> I definitely won't be doing the work, feel free.

Thanks for all the discussion so far.

I am summarizing what I got from this discussion so far, and
starting to get the direction on where we want to be:

0) Each mitigation should have their own Kconfig entry under
SPECULATION_MITIGATIONS.

1) Have "Mitigation" namespace for each mitigation. These are the new
name for the mitigations:
 * MITIGATION_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION
 * MITIGATION_RETPOLINE
 * MITIGATION_UNRET_ENTRY
 * MITIGATION_CALL_DEPTH_TRACKING
 * MITIGATION_IBPB_ENTRY
 * MITIGATION_IBRS_ENTRY
 * MITIGATION_SRSO
 * MITIGATION_SLS

2) Split the GDS mitigation in two:
 * MITIGATION_GDS
 * MITIGATION_GDS_FORCE

3) Create new Kconfigs for the following missing mitigations:
 * MITIGATION_MDS
 * MITIGATION_TAA
 * MITIGATION_MMIO_STALE_DATA
 * MITIGATION_L1TF
 * MITIGATION_RETBLEED
 * MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V1
 * MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V2
 * MITIGATION_SRBDS
 * MITIGATION_SSB

4) Do no touch the enum order, instead use the something as the code
below to avoid the #ifdefs in the code:

  static enum retbleed_mitigation_cmd retbleed_cmd __ro_after_init =
        IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETBLEED) ? RETBLEED_CMD_AUTO : RETBLEED_CMD_OFF;

5) Make sure that there is clear messages when the mitigations are
disabled.  i.e, make sure that the current pr_info() we have today are
called in case the mitigation is disabled.

Am I missing something?