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 11:46:04 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Tejun Heo wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:21:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > I don't think percpu_read_stable() can be used here.  It's not
> > > guaranteed to be stable across different cpus.
> >
> > Why would that matter? The caller has to disabled preemption anyways since
> > otherwise the processor may change which means that the result of the
> > operation is useless.
>
> Because
>
> 	preempt_disable();
> 	this_cpu_has();
> 	preempt_enable();
> 	preempt_disable();
> 	this_cpu_has();
> 	preempt_enable();
>
> might malfunction.  percpu_read_stable() is pretty much applicable
> only to stuff local to the thread.

Ok then lets change it to percpu_read

> > > 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.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean. this_cpu_test_bit is necessary because
> > test_cpu_cap expects a regular pointer and performs a regular load.
> > this_cpu_constant_test_bit handles the segment prefix necessary for a per
> > cpu load.
> >
> > The constant refers to the bit.
>
> Oh, you're right.  Sorry about that.  Can you please then add a
> comment noting that the operation is x86 only?  Maybe prefix it with
> x86_?

For a function defined in an specific include file and only used in arch
specific code?
--
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/