* correct is_cpu_vulnerable() comment
As far as I can tell, the function and usage are correct for the comment
to be inverted.
Add a clarifying note as to why the value choice makes sense.
* exit on invalid varient
If this happens, it's a bug in the script. None of the calling code
checks for status 255, so don't let a scripting bug cause a false
negative.
* no need to set vulnerable CPUs
According to comment above this code:
'by default, everything is vulnerable, we work in a "whitelist" logic here.'
