Re: [PATCH PATCH v2 8/9] x86/bugs: Declutter vulnerable CPU list

[Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 01:44:48PM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > The affected processor table has a lot of repetition and redundant
> > information that can be omitted. For example:
> > 
> >   VULNBL_INTEL_STEPPINGS(INTEL_IVYBRIDGE,		X86_STEPPING_ANY,		SRBDS),
> > 
> > can easily be simplified to:
> > 
> >   VULNBL_INTEL(IVYBRIDGE,	SRBDS),
> > 
> > Apply this to all the entries in the affected processor table.
> > 
> > No functional change. Disassembly of arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.o does not
> > show any difference before and after the change.
> 
> This patch only changes data, not code.  So there's not much point in
> diffing the disassembly ;-)

You are right.

> A diff of the .init.rodata sections actually shows one (non-functional)
> difference in cpu_vuln_blacklist[].
> 
> The COMETLAKE_L entries were moved to a new section below the rest of
> the entries:
> 
> 	/* Match more than Vendor/Family/Model */
> 	VULNBL_INTEL_STEPPINGS(COMETLAKE_L,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0x0),	MMIO | RETBLEED),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL	      (COMETLAKE_L,					MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED | GDS),
> 
> While that's functionally correct, it breaks the visual sorting, which
> is confusing and even a bit dangerous.  One would reasonably expect the
> COMETLAKE_L entries to come immediately after COMETLAKE, so it would be
> quite possible for somebody to come along later and add a new
> COMETLAKE_L there which conflicts with the later entries.
> 
> I'd much rather leave the STEPPINGS entry in the original list where it
> belongs.  Something like:
> 
> 	...
> 	VULNBL_INTEL(ICELAKE_L,			MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED | GDS),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL(ICELAKE_D,			MMIO | GDS),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL(ICELAKE_X,			MMIO | GDS),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL(COMETLAKE,			MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED | GDS),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL_STEPPINGS(COMETLAKE_L,
> 			       X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0x0),
> 			       MMIO | RETBLEED),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL(COMETLAKE_L,		MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED | GDS),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL(TIGERLAKE_L,		GDS),
> 	VULNBL_INTEL(TIGERLAKE,			GDS),
> 	...
> 
> Yes, that's a little ugly, but at least the sorting is correct so it's
> less confusing and more robust overall.

That makes sense, I will make that change.