linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: add is_f00f_bug helper to fault

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: <20080118090945.GD24337@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:09:45 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: add is_f00f_bug helper to fault_32|64.c


* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > Further towards unifying these files, add another helper in same 
> > spirit as is_errata93.
> 
> The better way to handle this would be to move all these workarounds 
> into notifiers that only get registered on the CPUs that actually have 
> the bugs.
> 
> There is right now no die notifier in the right place for this, but 
> you could just add one there. This is no performance critical place.

agreed in principle, but i think it's perhaps a bit more maintainable if 
we first aimed for unification, then did such cleanups ontop of the 
unified code. Almost everything we do prior unification is double the 
work.

	Ingo
--
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/