Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] x86/bugs: Only log missing retpoline when it's actually the missing mitigation

[Kim Phillips]

On 8/5/26 5:49 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > This patch corrects code that already cares about RETPOLINE=n kernels, but
> > it's also useful if you know all the target systems for a RETPOLINE=n config have
> > alternatives to RETPOLINE, such as {,e,Auto}IBRS.  This will become more and more
> > true as time goes by.
> Why would more and more configs become relevant which disable
> CONFIG_MITIGATION_RETPOLINE?
>
> What is the compelling use case which warrants to have this in the upstream
> kernel?
If by 'this' you mean this patch, it's because it fixes a bug with 
RETPOLINE=n kernels that sashiko found when reviewing the rest of the 
patches in the series.

If by 'this' you mean RETPOLINE=n configurability in general, this patch 
isn't adding or removing that.

Thanks,

Kim