On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 05:23:02PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 17:13, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 08:55:19PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:14:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:17:15AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > > On 2/6/23 04:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c > > > > > > @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static long __apm_bios_call(void *_call) > > > > > > > > > > > > apm_irq_save(flags); > > > > > > firmware_restrict_branch_speculation_start(); > > > > > > - ibt = ibt_save(); > > > > > > + ibt = ibt_save(true); > > > > > > > > > > My only nit with these is the bare use of 'true'/'false'. It's > > > > > impossible to tell at the call-site what the 'true' means. So, if you > > > > > happen to respin these and see a nice way to remedy this I'd appreciate it. > > > > > > > > I've often wished for a named argument extention to C, much like named > > > > initializers, such that one can write: > > > > > > > > ibt_save(.disable = true); > > > > > > > > Because the thing you mention is very common with boolean arguments, the > > > > what gets lost in the argument name and true/false just isn't very > > > > telling. > > > > > > > > But yeah, even if by some miracle all compiler guys were like, YES! and > > > > implemented it tomorrow, we couldn't use it for a good few years anyway > > > > :-/ > > > > > > Well... ;) > > > > > > | [mark@lakrids:~]% cat args.c > > > | #include <stdbool.h> > > > | #include <stdio.h> > > > | > > > | struct foo_args { > > > | bool enable; > > > | unsigned long other; > > > | }; > > > | > > > | void __foo(struct foo_args args) > > > | { > > > | printf("foo:\n" > > > | " enable: %s\n" > > > | " other: 0x%lx\n", > > > | args.enable ? "YES" : "NO", > > > | args.other); > > > | } > > > | > > > | #define foo(args...) \ > > > | __foo((struct foo_args) { args }) > > > | > > > | > > > | int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > > | { > > > | foo(true); > > > | foo(.enable = true); > > > | foo(false, .other=0xdead); > > > | } > > > | [mark@lakrids:~]% gcc args.c -o args > > > | [mark@lakrids:~]% ./args > > > | foo: > > > | enable: YES > > > | other: 0x0 > > > | foo: > > > | enable: YES > > > | other: 0x0 > > > | foo: > > > | enable: NO > > > | other: 0xdead > > > > I am horrified and delighted. > > +1 > > > And the resulting codegen is identical: > > https://godbolt.org/z/eKTMPYc17 > > > > Without this fancy solution, what I'd seen is just using an enum: > > > > enum do_the_thing { > > THING_DISABLE = 0, > > THING_ENABLE, > > }; > > > > void foo(enum do_the_thing enable) > > { > > if (enable) { ... } > > } > > > > foo(THING_ENABLE); > > > > I have no strong preference one way or the other, but given that > apm_32.c is not the epicenter of new development, and the call from > EFI code is self-documenting already (' > ibt_save(efi_disable_ibt_for_runtime)', I'm inclined to just queue the > patch as-is, and leave it to whoever feels inclined to spend more free > time on this to come up with some nice polish to put on top. > > Unless anyone minds? Yeah, this was just commentary. I think the patch is fine as-is. -- Kees Cook