Re: [PATCH v2] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just X86_VENDOR_INTEL

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, May 17 2024 at 10:35, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On May 17, 2024 7:43:12 AM PDT, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>And then do:
>>
>>struct x86_cpu_id {
>>        __u16 vendor;
>>        __u16 family;
>>        __u16 model;
>>        __u16 steppings;
>>        __u16 feature;  /* bit index */
>>	__u16 flags;
>>        kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
>>};
>>
>>#define X86_CPU_ID_FLAG_VENDOR_VALID		BIT(0)
>>
>>and then have the macros in arch/x86/include/asm/cpu_device_id.h set
>>that valid flag and then have x86_match_cpu() check it.
>>
>>Then you don't risk a userspace breakage and that x86_match_cpu() crap
>>thing is fixed.
>
> I'm confused. Why not simply use say -1 for wildcard vendor match, -2
> for no vendor ID (no CPUID or other known probing mechanism) and -3
> for unrecognized vendor (vendor detectable but not known.)

This has nothing to do with wildcards.

The problem at hand is about loop termination. Making that explicit by
having a valid bit in the existing struct hole is trivial, straight
forward and just works obviously correct.

> I *hate* these strings with the passion of a thousand suns: they are a
> classic case of how just blindly converting binary information to hex
> adds absolutely no value, and often makes the result worse than what
> one started with. And yes, I complained about that when they first
> went in as a classic case of exposing what was always simply intended
> as a kernel internal interface to user space.

You obviously did not complain loud enough :)

> This is particularly pathetic as there already is a canonical string
> representation of the vendor ID!

I agree, but that train has left the station long ago,

Thanks,

        tglx