linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc8 [also: VIA Support]

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:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 18:26:40 -0500
From:	"Michael S. Zick" <lkml@...ethan.org>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc:	Harald Welte <HaraldWelte@...tech.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Duane Griffin <duaneg@...da.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc8 [also: VIA Support]

On Thu June 4 2009, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> On Thu June 4 2009, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:38:13PM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
>

I have it now, you where speaking of the "product vendor Centaur"
not a specific model name "Centaur".

Which I translate into: that statement block needs to be converted into
(possibly nested) switch statement(s).
Since there is not a "model check" in it only a "Series" and "Vendor" check.

Yuck.
Mike

> >  > I have already preceded that chunk of code with a printk and confirmed
> >  > that x86_clflush_size is properly set to 64 bytes (somewhere else).
> >  > 
> >  > So your suggestion is the obvious one for the C7-M,
> >  > I don't know about any other makes/models. 
> >  > 
> >  > This machine's C7-M is being reported as a "stepping 0" ??
> >  > What is earlier than a stepping 0 ??
> > 
> > Earlier model numbers.
> > (Stepping gets reset to 0 every time they bump the model)
> > 
> 
> So 6.model=13.stepping=0 should do it for the (or this) C7-M, correct?
> Your mention of "earlier models" will not apply until there is a
> stepping >0 for a model=13, correct?
> 
> Would a good practice be to put a "WARN_ON" in there in case a stepping
> greater than =0 happens to execute the code?
> In addition to checking specificly for 6.13.0 (rather than just 6.13).
> 
> Hmmm...
> But that is making a big mess of a small mess -
> Why not just do the assignment you suggest for 6.model>=13?
> 
> Models earlier than 13 are evidently working (due to lack of
> bug reports or other noise on this list).
> 
> Mike
> > 	Dave
> > 
> > --
> > 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/
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 
> 


--
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/