linux-kernel - Re: x86: A fast way to check capabilities of the current cpu

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:	Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:11:33 +0100
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Pekka Enbeerg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: x86: A fast way to check capabilities of the current cpu

Hello, Christoph.

I was trying to forward this to x86 tree but spotted a problem.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:07:39PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> +static __always_inline int this_cpu_constant_test_bit(unsigned int nr,
> +                        const unsigned long __percpu *addr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long __percpu *a = (unsigned long *)addr + nr / BITS_PER_LONG;
> +
> +	return ((1UL << (nr % BITS_PER_LONG)) & percpu_read_stable(*a)) != 0;
> +}

I don't think percpu_read_stable() can be used here.  It's not
guaranteed to be stable across different cpus.

Also, can we just implement what's necessary on top of this_cpu_has()?
this_cpu_has() already has constant handling, so there's no need to
add this_cpu_test_bit() at this point.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun
--
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/