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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:38:34 +0200 From: Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@...l.net> To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com> Cc: David Mosberger-Tang <dmosberger@...il.com>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito Luck, Tony wrote: >>This seems crazy to me. Flushing should occur according to the >>*architecture*, not model-by-model. Even if we happen to get "lucky" >>on pre-Montecito CPUs, that doesn't justify such ugly hacks. Or you >>really want to debug this *again* come next CPU? > > > Ditto. The only reason we should ever have model specific checks should > be to work around model specific errata (e.g. the McKinley Errata #9 code > in patch.c). You do have model specific I cache semantics. Not taking it into account will oblige you to flush in vain for the models which do not require it. Why do you want to take this option? Thanks, Zoltan - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists