Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush

[PATCH v7 00/10] VMSCAPE optimization for BHI variant · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 01/10] x86/bhi: x86/vmscape: Move LFENCE out of clear_bhb_loop() · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 02/10] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on newer CPUs · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 03/10] x86/bhi: Rename clear_bhb_loop() to clear_bhb_loop_nofence() · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 03/10] x86/bhi: Rename clear_bhb_loop() to clear_bhb_loop_nofence() · Nikolay Borisov <hidden> · 2026-03-23
Re: [PATCH v7 03/10] x86/bhi: Rename clear_bhb_loop() to clear_bhb_loop_nofence() · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-23
[PATCH v7 04/10] x86/vmscape: Rename x86_ibpb_exit_to_user to x86_predictor_flush_exit_to_user · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 05/10] x86/vmscape: Move mitigation selection to a switch() · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 06/10] x86/vmscape: Use write_ibpb() instead of indirect_branch_prediction_barrier() · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-20
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> · 2026-03-20
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> · 2026-03-20
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-20
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> · 2026-03-24
Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] x86/vmscape: Use static_call() for predictor flush · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-24
[PATCH v7 08/10] x86/vmscape: Deploy BHB clearing mitigation · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 09/10] x86/vmscape: Fix conflicting attack-vector controls with =force · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
[PATCH v7 10/10] x86/vmscape: Add cmdline vmscape=on to override attack vector controls · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 10/10] x86/vmscape: Add cmdline vmscape=on to override attack vector controls · bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org · 2026-03-19
Re: [PATCH v7 10/10] x86/vmscape: Add cmdline vmscape=on to override attack vector controls · Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> · 2026-03-19

From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
Date: 2026-03-24 20:14:11
Also in: bpf, kvm, linux-doc, lkml

On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 09:00:26PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 11:23:08AM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:

quoted

I am curious, what problems do you anticipate? There are nearly 50

What's easier when you need to change the underlying implementation: unexport
the static key and touch a bunch of places in the process or simply change the
accessor's body and all the callers don't notice a thing?

I see. I switched to accessor in v8 I sent today.

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help