Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-82381-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 14:10:59 -0800
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@intel.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: x86/urgent] x86/bugs: Add asm helpers for executing VERW
Message-ID: <20240226221059.mnuurhn6g3irys37@desk>
References: <170839092792.398.3678407222202963581.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <6380ba8d-4e99-46e6-8d92-911d10963ba7@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6380ba8d-4e99-46e6-8d92-911d10963ba7@suse.com>

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 09:17:30AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > index 262e655..077083e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > @@ -315,6 +315,17 @@
> >   #endif
> >   .endm
> > +/*
> > + * Macro to execute VERW instruction that mitigate transient data sampling
> > + * attacks such as MDS. On affected systems a microcode update overloaded VERW
> > + * instruction to also clear the CPU buffers. VERW clobbers CFLAGS.ZF.
> > + *
> > + * Note: Only the memory operand variant of VERW clears the CPU buffers.
> > + */
> > +.macro CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS
> > +	ALTERNATIVE "", __stringify(verw _ASM_RIP(mds_verw_sel)), X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_CPU_BUF
> 
> Any particular reason why this uses RIP-relative vs an absolute address
> mode?

Early versions of the series had the VERW arg pointing to the macro
itself, that is why relative addressing was used. That got changed in a
later version with all VERW sites pointing to a single memory location.

> I know in our private exchange you said there is no significance but
> for example older kernels have a missing relocation support in alternatives.
> This of course can be worked around by slightly changing the logic of the
> macro which means different kernels will have slightly different macros.

Do you anticipate a problem with that? If yes, I can send a patch to use
fixed addressing in upstream as well.