Re: [PATCH PATCH 9/9] x86/rfds: Exclude P-only parts from the RFDS affected list

[Dave Hansen]

On 6/17/24 02:12, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> +#define VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE(vfm, cpu_type, issues)	\
> +	X86_MATCH_VFM_CPU_TYPE(INTEL_##vfm, cpu_type, issues)
> +
...
>  	/* Match more than Vendor/Family/Model */
>  	VULNBL_INTEL_STEPPINGS(COMETLAKE_L,	X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0x0),	MMIO | RETBLEED),
>  	VULNBL_INTEL	      (COMETLAKE_L,					MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED | GDS),
> +	VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE (RAPTORLAKE,	X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ATOM,	RFDS),
> +	VULNBL_INTEL_CPU_TYPE (ALDERLAKE,	X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_ATOM,	RFDS),

Could we tweak this a bit to make it more compact?  For instance, if we
did this:

#define VULNBL_INTEL_TYPE(vfm, cpu_type, issues)	\
		X86_MATCH_VFM_CPU_TYPE(INTEL_##vfm,	\
		X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_##cpu_type,		\	
		issues)

We'd end up with entries like this:

	VULNBL_INTEL_TYPE (ALDERLAKE,	ATOM,	RFDS),

I guess "TYPE" is a _bit_ ambiguous.  But it's also pretty patently
obvious what's going on versus something like this:

	VULNBL_INTEL	  (COMETLAKE_L,	MMIO | MMIO_SBDS | RETBLEED...),

Getting rid of the "X86_CPU_TYPE_INTEL_" string in the table is low
hanging fruit.  I don't feel as strongly about changing the new macro name.