From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934C4C05027 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231346AbjBHPXR (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2023 10:23:17 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51374 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231217AbjBHPXQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2023 10:23:16 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A85B54671C for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 07:23:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1675869795; x=1707405795; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+6lc2JZe7pOZJ+ZEzzeo5NMYX3WZ0aaZEmIs4Fc6h+c=; b=Mb9KXnAqqVUzFWEL45o8obW6aEc7HhNFkjZMT40BIuC5at8HrCDL/fvs F5kwz2yun1CUYa/rHvwcqT3xlQSItrWDoT1Ckfw0/6100tdfTLPLmnco+ P2rwMpZ212sOTJBSnnncs3F99aHBp+fOX+HMU+WXpsM/zPKvPCPZ2MXh6 TzqXRIlKMDpe5BqTdhmnVMcAO6nMNnHKlXbeoChWecGZX3/KQtptl7JHn GMiBjlhepfS/eiab28MBIZ6lYgiT/O4bHn9bOYuZm65Ffqv+KiUIyqEiz Lt4VHN0moMUJQKN3jK4IwrxEeqHIHitz6ec7bm+GebgNPjfQp98IAf13Q w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10615"; a="416045857" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,281,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="416045857" Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Feb 2023 07:17:16 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10615"; a="669224186" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,281,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="669224186" Received: from tbacklun-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.14.225]) ([10.209.14.225]) by fmsmga007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Feb 2023 07:17:16 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 07:17:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: x86: Wire up IBT annotation in memory attributes table Content-Language: en-US To: Ard Biesheuvel , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Kees Cook , Mark Rutland , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen References: <20230206124938.272988-1-ardb@kernel.org> <20230206124938.272988-4-ardb@kernel.org> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20230206124938.272988-4-ardb@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 2/6/23 04:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c > @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static long __apm_bios_call(void *_call) > > apm_irq_save(flags); > firmware_restrict_branch_speculation_start(); > - ibt = ibt_save(); > + ibt = ibt_save(true); My only nit with these is the bare use of 'true'/'false'. It's impossible to tell at the call-site what the 'true' means. So, if you happen to respin these and see a nice way to remedy this I'd appreciate it. But they're still OK as-is. For the x86 bits: Acked-by: Dave Hansen