Re: [PATCH PATCH 9/9] x86/rfds: Exclude P-only parts from the RFDS affected list

Dave Hansen
2024-06-17T14:33:26Z

On 6/17/24 02:12, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> +#define VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE(vfm, cpu_type, issues) \
> + X86_MATCH_VFM_CPU_TYPE(INTEL_##vfm, cpu_type, issues)
> +
...
> /* 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),
> + VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE (RAPTORLAKE, X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ATOM, RFDS),
> + VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE (ALDERLAKE, X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ATOM, RFDS),

Could we tweak this a bit to make it more compact? For instance, if we
did this:

#define VULNBL_INTEL_TYPE(vfm, cpu_type, issues) \
X86_MATCH_VFM_CPU_TYPE(INTEL_##vfm, \
X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_##cpu_type, \
issues)

We'd end up with entries like this:

VULNBL_INTEL_TYPE (ALDERLAKE, ATOM, RFDS),

I guess "TYPE" is a _bit_ ambiguous. But it's also pretty patently
obvious what's going on versus something like this:

VULNBL_INTEL (COMETLAKE_L, MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED...),

Getting rid of the "X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_" string in the table is low
hanging fruit. I don't feel as strongly about changing the new macro name.