linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: check if CLFLUSH is actually necessary

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:	Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:10:12 -0700
From:	Scotty Bauer <sbauer@....utah.edu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: check if CLFLUSH is actually necessary


On 02/11/2015 02:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/30/2015 01:26 PM, Scotty Bauer wrote:
>> mwait_play_dead previously issued a CLFLUSH to work around a bug on
>> some xeon processors. We can now determine if the CPU is a buggy CPU.
>> This patch checks if if we're on a buggy CPU which allows non-buggy
>> cpu's to eliminate the CLFLUSH.
> Here is my first question: does this matter at all?  Otherwise I don't
> see a point.
>
> 	-hpa
>
>
Do you get the same effect? Sure, but is the previous way the right way to do it? In my opinion no, but I'm not the one merging code its up to someone more experienced to determine if the change is warranted. The change is slightly faster on non-buggy cpu, but like you mention, is that relevant when the machine is going into idle?


--
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/