On 04/03/2024 4:45 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.03.2024 17:10, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec.h
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec.h
>> @@ -23,20 +23,20 @@ static always_inline bool barrier_nospec_false(void)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> -/* Allow to protect evaluation of conditionals with respect to speculation
>> */
>> -static always_inline bool evaluate_nospec(bool condition)
>> +static always_inline bool arch_evaluate_nospec(bool condition)
>> {
>> if ( condition )
>> return barrier_nospec_true();
>> else
>> return barrier_nospec_false();
>> }
>> +#define arch_evaluate_nospec arch_evaluate_nospec
>>
>> -/* Allow to block speculative execution in generic code */
>> -static always_inline void block_speculation(void)
>> +static always_inline void arch_block_speculation(void)
>> {
>> barrier_nospec_true();
>> }
>> +#define arch_block_speculation arch_block_speculation
> I'm having some difficulty seeing the need for the renaming (adding
> or the arch_ prefixes): Why can't the original names be kept, and
> ...
>
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/nospec.h
>> @@ -9,6 +9,29 @@
>>
>> #include <asm/nospec.h>
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Protect a conditional branch from bad speculation. Architectures *must*
>> + * provide arch_evaluate_nospec() for this to be effective.
>> + */
>> +static always_inline bool evaluate_nospec(bool cond)
>> +{
>> +#ifndef arch_evaluate_nospec
>> +#define arch_evaluate_nospec(cond) cond
>> +#endif
>> + return arch_evaluate_nospec(cond);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Halt speculation unconditonally. Architectures *must* provide
>> + * arch_block_speculation() for this to be effective.
>> + */
>> +static always_inline void block_speculation(void)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef arch_block_speculation
>> + arch_block_speculation();
>> +#endif
>> +}
> ... stubs be introduced here if the original names aren't #define-d?
> IOW what does the extra layer gain us?
See the next patch.
~Andrew
