linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] Allow selected bug checks to be skipped by paravirt kernels

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]

Message-ID: <20061101224019.GA10577@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:40:19 -0500
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, akpm@...l.org, ak@....de,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] Allow selected bug checks to be skipped by paravirt kernels

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:

 > > +++ linux-2.6-pv/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c
 > > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void __cpuinit init_intel(struct 
 > >  	 * Note that the workaround only should be initialized once...
 > >  	 */
 > >  	c->f00f_bug = 0;
 > > -	if ( c->x86 == 5 ) {
 > > +	if (!paravirt_enabled() && c->x86 == 5) {
 > 
 > I'd do x86==5 check first... pentiums are not common any more.

It's not like paravirt_enabled will be common-case either,
and is this isn't exactly a performance critical piece of code,
it doesn't really matter which way around the checks are done.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/