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

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

On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 10:45:57AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 11:01:20 +0100
> Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 01:39:34AM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > > I believe the equivalent for cpu_feature_enabled() in asm is the
> > > ALTERNATIVE. Please let me know if I am missing something.  
> > 
> > Yes, you are.
> > 
> > The point is that you don't want to stick those alternative calls inside some
> > magic bhb_loop function but hand them in from the outside, as function
> > arguments.
> > 
> > Basically what I did.
> > 
> > Then you were worried about this being C code and it had to be noinstr... So
> > that outer function can be rewritten in asm, I think, and still keep it well
> > separate.
> > 
> > I'll try to rewrite it once I get a free minute, and see how it looks.
> > 
> 
> I think someone tried getting C code to write the values to global data
> and getting the asm to read them.
> That got discounted because it spilt things between two largely unrelated files.


The implementation with global variables wasn't that bad, let me revive it.

This part which ties sequence to BHI mitigation, which is not ideal,
(because VMSCAPE also uses it) it does seems a cleaner option.

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
@@ -2095,6 +2095,11 @@ static void __init bhi_select_mitigation(void)

 static void __init bhi_update_mitigation(void)
 {
+   if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_BHI_CTRL)) {
+       bhi_seq_outer_loop = 5;
+       bhi_seq_inner_loop = 5;
+   }
+

I believe this can be moved to somewhere common to all mitigations.

> I think the BPF code would need significant refactoring to call a C function.

Ya, true. Will use globals and keep clear_bhb_loop() in asm.