Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] x86/bugs: Decouple ALTERNATIVE usage from VERW macro definition

[Sean Christopherson]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 05:30:34PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Decouple the use of ALTERNATIVE from the encoding of VERW to clear CPU
> > buffers so that KVM can use ALTERNATIVE_2 to handle "always clear buffers"
> > and "clear if guest can access host MMIO" in a single statement.
> > 
> > No functional change intended.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h | 21 ++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > index 08ed5a2e46a5..923ae21cbef1 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> > @@ -308,24 +308,23 @@
> >   * CFLAGS.ZF.
> >   * Note: Only the memory operand variant of VERW clears the CPU buffers.
> >   */
> > -.macro __CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS feature
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > -	ALTERNATIVE "", "verw x86_verw_sel(%rip)", \feature
> > +#define CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS_SEQ	verw x86_verw_sel(%rip)
> >  #else
> > -	/*
> > -	 * In 32bit mode, the memory operand must be a %cs reference. The data
> > -	 * segments may not be usable (vm86 mode), and the stack segment may not
> > -	 * be flat (ESPFIX32).
> > -	 */
> > -	ALTERNATIVE "", "verw %cs:x86_verw_sel", \feature
> > +/*
> > + * In 32bit mode, the memory operand must be a %cs reference. The data segments
> > + * may not be usable (vm86 mode), and the stack segment may not be flat (ESPFIX32).
> > + */
> > +#define CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS_SEQ	verw %cs:x86_verw_sel
> >  #endif
> > -.endm
> > +
> > +#define __CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS	__stringify(CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS_SEQ)
> >  
> >  #define CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS \
> > -	__CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_CPU_BUF
> > +	ALTERNATIVE "", __CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS, X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_CPU_BUF
> >  
> >  #define VM_CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS \
> > -	__CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_CPU_BUF_VM
> > +	ALTERNATIVE "", __CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS, X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_CPU_BUF_VM
> 
> Sorry nitpicking, we have too many "CLEAR_CPU_BUF" in these macros, can we
> avoid adding CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS_SEQ?

AFAICT, there's no sane way to avoid defining a macro for the raw instruction. :-/

> Or better yet, can we name the actual instruction define to VERW_SEQ, 

Works for me.