linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/kernel: Skip TSC test and error messages if already unstable

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:35:20 -0700
From:   Mike Travis <mike.travis@....com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
        Andrew Banman <andrew.banman@....com>,
        Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@....com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/kernel: Skip TSC test and error messages if
 already unstable



On 10/12/2017 8:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Mike Travis wrote:
>> On 10/12/2017 4:17 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, mike.travis@....com wrote:
>>>> @@ -89,6 +93,10 @@ bool tsc_store_and_check_tsc_adjust(bool
>>>>    	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST))
>>>>    		return false;
>>>>    +	/* Skip unnecessary error messages if TSC already unstable */
>>>> +	if (check_tsc_unstable())
>>>> +		return false;
>>>> +
>>>>    	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_TSC_ADJUST, bootval);
>>>>    	cur->bootval = bootval;
>>>>    	cur->adjusted = bootval;
>>>
>>> This hunk rejects and I really can't figure out against which tree that
>>> would apply.
>>
>> My current merge tree happens to be 4.13.0-rc1 which was the latest when I
>> started this patch submission.  I can update my merge tree and reapply if need
>> be?
> 
> Please send patches always against top of tree and not some random ancient
> version of it.
> 

I pulled in 4.14.0-rc4 and reapplied the patches and they went in
without conflict.  Hopefully it will be the same for you.

(And dealt with your question about applying the same change to
the !CONFIG_SMP case.)

Thanks,
Mike