linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito

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: <46B0549A.1010308@bull.net>
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/