Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] x86/pti: add a per-cpu variable pti_disable

[Willy Tarreau]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:59:01AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:01:02AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > [...] If we had "pit_enabled", something like this could be confusing because 
> > > > it's not obvious whether this pti_enabled *enforces* PTI or if its absence 
> > > > disables it :
> > > > 
> > > > 	cmpb $0, PER_CPU_VAR(pti_enabled)
> > > > 	jz .Lend\@
> > > 
> > > The natural sequence would be:
> > > 
> > > 	cmpb $1, PER_CPU_VAR(pti_enabled)
> > > 	jne .Lend\@
> > > 
> > > which is not confusing to me at all.
> > 
> > In fact I think I know now why it still poses me a problem : this
> > pti_enabled flag alone is not sufficient to enable PTI, it's just part
> > of the condition, as another part comes from the X86_FEATURE_PTI flag.
> > However, pti_disabled is sufficient to disable PTI so actually its
> > effect matches its name (note BTW that I called it "pti_disable" as a
> > verb indicating an action -- "I want to disable pti", and not as a past
> > form "pti is disabled").
> 
> If it's a verb then please name it in the proper order, i.e. 'disable_pti'.
> 
> I'm fine with that approach.

OK thanks.

Willy