Re: [PATCH v8 02/10] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on newer CPUs

[David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 10:50:58 -0700
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 11:19 AM Pawan Gupta
> <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > As a mitigation for BHI, clear_bhb_loop() executes branches that overwrites
> > the Branch History Buffer (BHB). On Alder Lake and newer parts this
> > sequence is not sufficient because it doesn't clear enough entries. This
> > was not an issue because these CPUs have a hardware control (BHI_DIS_S)
> > that mitigates BHI in kernel.
> >
> > BHI variant of VMSCAPE requires isolating branch history between guests and
> > userspace. Note that there is no equivalent hardware control for userspace.
> > To effectively isolate branch history on newer CPUs, clear_bhb_loop()
> > should execute sufficient number of branches to clear a larger BHB.
> >
> > Dynamically set the loop count of clear_bhb_loop() such that it is
> > effective on newer CPUs too. Use the hardware control enumeration
> > X86_FEATURE_BHI_CTRL to select the appropriate loop count.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S   | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c |  7 -------
> >  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> > index 3a180a36ca0e..8128e00ca73f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
> > @@ -1535,8 +1535,17 @@ SYM_CODE_END(rewind_stack_and_make_dead)
> >  SYM_FUNC_START(clear_bhb_loop)
> >         ANNOTATE_NOENDBR
> >         push    %rbp
> > +       /* BPF caller may require %rax to be preserved */

Since you need a new version change that to 'all registers preserved'.

> > +       push    %rax  
> 
> Shouldn't the "push %rax" come after "mov %rsp, %rbp"?

Or delete the stack frame :-)
It is only there for the stack trace-back code.

	David


> 
> >         mov     %rsp, %rbp
> > -       movl    $5, %ecx