linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64: add reporting of SVM flags to /proc/cpuinfo

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:46:52 +0100
From:	"Joerg Roedel" <joerg.roedel@....com>
To:	"Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>
cc:	discuss@...-64.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64: add reporting of SVM flags to
 /proc/cpuinfo

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 04:25:31PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 05 March 2007 15:39, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > From: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
> > 
> > This patch adds the advanced SVM reporting to /proc/cpuinfo on the x86_64
> > architecture.
> 
> Adding more fields to /proc/cpuinfo is always somewhat risky because
> there are lots of badly written parsers for it.

Can you point me to some really broken parsers of /proc/cpuinfo to test
with?

> I considered adding the SVM fields myself, but decided against it because
> it didn't seem generally useful enough.

I don't see that this is less important than the power flags in that
file. Some users might be interested to see if their processor has npt
for example by simply looking into cpuinfo.
As I said, would be interested to know more about these badly written
parsers.

Joerg

-- 
Joerg Roedel
Operating System Research Center
AMD Saxony LLC & Co. KG


-
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/