On 23/02/2024 9:42 am, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> The current logic to handle the BRANCH_HARDEN option will report it as enabled
> even when build-time disabled. Fix this by only allowing the option to be set
> when support for it is built into Xen.
>
> Fixes: 2d6f36daa086 ('x86/nospec: Introduce CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_HARDEN_BRANCH')
> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/spec_ctrl.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/spec_ctrl.c b/xen/arch/x86/spec_ctrl.c
> index 421fe3f640df..e634c6b559b4 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/spec_ctrl.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/spec_ctrl.c
> @@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ static int8_t __initdata opt_psfd = -1;
> int8_t __ro_after_init opt_ibpb_ctxt_switch = -1;
> int8_t __read_mostly opt_eager_fpu = -1;
> int8_t __read_mostly opt_l1d_flush = -1;
> -static bool __initdata opt_branch_harden = true;
> +static bool __initdata opt_branch_harden =
> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_HARDEN_BRANCH);
>
> bool __initdata bsp_delay_spec_ctrl;
> uint8_t __read_mostly default_xen_spec_ctrl;
> @@ -267,7 +268,8 @@ static int __init cf_check parse_spec_ctrl(const char *s)
> opt_eager_fpu = val;
> else if ( (val = parse_boolean("l1d-flush", s, ss)) >= 0 )
> opt_l1d_flush = val;
> - else if ( (val = parse_boolean("branch-harden", s, ss)) >= 0 )
> + else if ( IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_HARDEN_BRANCH) &&
> + (val = parse_boolean("branch-harden", s, ss)) >= 0 )
> opt_branch_harden = val;
Yeah, we should definitely fix this, but could we use no_config_param()
here for the compiled-out case ?
See cet= for an example. If we're going to ignore what the user asks,
we should tell them why.
And given this as an example, shouldn't we do the same with
CONFIG_INDIRECT_THUNK and bti=thunk= too ?
~Andrew
