Re: [PATCH v24 04/30] x86/cpufeatures: Introduce X86_FEATURE_CET and setup functions

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 08:52:52AM -0700, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote:
> Recall we had complicated code for the XSAVES features detection in
> xstate.c.  Dave Hansen proposed the solution and then the whole thing
> becomes simple.  Because of this flag, even when only the shadow stack is
> available, the code handles it nicely.

Is that what you mean?

@@ -53,6 +55,8 @@ static short xsave_cpuid_features[] __initdata = {
 	X86_FEATURE_INTEL_PT,
 	X86_FEATURE_PKU,
 	X86_FEATURE_ENQCMD,
+	X86_FEATURE_CET, /* XFEATURE_CET_USER */
+	X86_FEATURE_CET, /* XFEATURE_CET_KERNEL */

or what is the piece which becomes simpler?

> Would this equal to only CONFIG_X86_CET (one Kconfig option)?  In fact, when
> you proposed only CONFIG_X86_CET, things became much simpler.

When you use CONFIG_X86_SHADOW_STACK instead, it should remain same
simple no?

> Practically, IBT is not much in terms of code size.  Since we have already
> separated the two, why don't we leave it as-is.  When people start using it
> more, there will be more feedback, and we can decide if one Kconfig is
> better?

Because when we add stuff to the kernel, we add the simplest and
cleanest version possible and later, when we determine that additional
functionality is needed, *then* we add it. Not the other way around.

Our Kconfig symbol space is already an abomination so we can't just add
some more and decide later.

What happens in such situations usually is stuff gets added, it bitrots
and some poor soul - very likely a maintainer who has to mop up after
everybody - comes and cleans it up. I'd like to save myself that
cleaning up.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette