Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-35498-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:05:47 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for missing
 mitigation
Message-ID: <Za/Vy2l1VwyI4DKH@gmail.com>
References: <20240118173213.2008115-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <20240118173213.2008115-3-leitao@debian.org>
 <20240122205821.m5dsyi4sc2ghoavd@desk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240122205821.m5dsyi4sc2ghoavd@desk>

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:58:21PM -0800, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 09:32:12AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > +config MITIGATION_RETBLEED
> > +	bool "Mitigate RETBleed hardware bug"
> > +	depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL || (CPU_SUP_AMD && MITIGATION_UNRET_ENTRY)
> 
> Atleast on Intel CPUs, Retbleed mitigation is meaningless without
> spectre-v2 being mitigated, shouldn't this depend on MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V2?

I suppose it is the same for AMD, right?

So, I suppose it should be something as:

	depends on (MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V2 && (CPU_SUP_INTEL || (CPU_SUP_AMD && MITIGATION_UNRET_ENTRY))

Is this better?

Thanks!