linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: do_boot_cpu - add check if we have ESR register

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:00:24 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: do_boot_cpu - add check if we have ESR register


* Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote:

> > Actually it's resend of the patch. On previous attempt Yinghai was 
> > proposed to choose:
> >
> >> one apic_version or boot_cpu_apic_version could be enough
> >
> > but I think it should be different patch which does cleaning up 
> > variables usage. So for now I think _this_ patch is enough since 
> > idea is to prevent of touching nonexistant register rather code 
> > cleaning (whci could be done later).
> 
> do we have systems that have mixed cpu supported with different apic 
> version?

i dont think that ever happened in the past. Vendors have trouble 
keeping same-cpu type systems going ;-)

OTOH, if it's simple to have multi-version support then lets do that 
throughout. (although we certainly cannot test it. Perhaps we can 
provoke it artificially via a hack that artificially degrades one cpu's 
apic version or so.)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/