From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f46.google.com (mail-ed1-f46.google.com [209.85.208.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B2BC12E5F for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 15:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706022353; cv=none; b=LdnBI7lMpm6ptWElgJClPFCrk2jrkvt0vivlLaJlmWPwwXAncDOUMAobes01Sn2xLb41taOHvKmIPciEwk7xc9cL9mMJkwtpvlF2PptzvvUnnjFmTCCNjygsSAC8IgU9e1WE8NCXi+YG9WyroxUpgEIECTWLXEpM2vJD1okqbEI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706022353; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wvGlVsQRlMzMaGWrgeHCND3JeOnNmKmCHpOURqz56Kg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=amx5Bsclhfnq1w6vqu6LpOBCs6/y3T1k74auyXiqLfp3Cp+B8vBXoToXHyRAkVQv3M24slTpiBcLi9OrQyrYc6F1U8CWf5JWH70Iq1FiXM+q2PKxdqikDWZhvtfM7RAj9QmfjmHpekzW2znv6ic+b7Pg71Uz3oo/tMHR9Sb/ONE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ed1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-55a035669d5so5178834a12.2 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:05:51 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706022350; x=1706627150; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=v1Hr4uS3fFpYg2vOteF+nJHwgU9ofLyiq0K2GCPAZ3U=; b=hU44VnsXVxmS4Bqi1e1FUjqh/aOky34lVadbG7vjvlMNH8hXkQoG1xHmDFBvrdpzVe AsfT4Cen2P1zHDqsoFJQ+ZgpoN57sgBCNKIq/fM1NO0yxXY8pD0mUtvKIdidjgq+a28X veNjs7X3pTkg/b+sA5y2R6kC9si43tKr4MqPU7FLLcxKrTWzb0Ks9RkFSuFEswpzuC+S O28OqjWTCznRKC8mMWJqV2IAG6DcCu3UVRbU2U+uZ8pBddY6K6W1k+pWvCLV74jZY+71 6C8p2xNeod1sm/cUSwCWrsyQ7AqESS+nd5mqKOrAMHWjWP9+b8kBHzG3bm4X+a3sX/OO //TQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy9FBI2tmsJFtsQMNFpRZ/HSauSUID6vuUnut3UunSfss2fuz24 SYWQSEeVpt9A4DTUhMMgOFDzJJONXNJffwnnpRgX/rDkJyzujqwG X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJCuelrF5HYkEhlcLObygXfEiaQA/TP7/ghDAOkadWYS6fenzKfsyMar6fUp2OhZU8n9xk3A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1958:b0:a30:84aa:c2f5 with SMTP id b24-20020a170906195800b00a3084aac2f5mr7615eje.56.1706022350059; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmail.com (fwdproxy-cln-027.fbsv.net. [2a03:2880:31ff:1b::face:b00c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t15-20020a17090605cf00b00a28aa4871c7sm14338053ejt.205.2024.01.23.07.05.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:05:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:05:47 -0800 From: Breno Leitao To: Pawan Gupta Cc: mingo@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Josh Poimboeuf , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for missing mitigation Message-ID: References: <20240118173213.2008115-1-leitao@debian.org> <20240118173213.2008115-3-leitao@debian.org> <20240122205821.m5dsyi4sc2ghoavd@desk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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!