On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:36:54PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> This seems like a good idea to me, assuming we want ASI in the code
> eventually it seems worthwhile to make visible the places where we
> know we'll want to update the code when we get it in.
>
> In RFCv2 this would be static_asi_enabled() [1] - I think in the
> current implementation it would be fine to use it directly, but in
> general we do need to be aware of initializion order.
Right, I'd suggest you whack that thing and use cpu_feature_enabled()
directly. No need for the indirection.
And I see you're setting X86_FEATURE_ASI in asi_check_boottime_disable() - I'm
presuming that's early enough so that cpu_select_mitigations() in bugs.c can
see it so that srso_select_mitigation() can act accordingly...
> Of course I'm biased here, from my perspective having such mentions of
> ASI in the code is unambiguously useful. But if others perceived it as
> useless noise I would understand!
Yeah, well, it'll be a single feature check in srso_select_mitigation() with
a big-fat comment in it explaining why so I think that should be ok...
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
