linux-kernel - Re: processor flags

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: <47EBFBBE.4060404@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:55:42 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: processor flags

Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> 
> And now I'm in confusion - the way of changing this code I see is the
> following:
> 
> - or use additional #ifdef CONFIG_VM86 in code where VM_MASK is used
>   (that would be ugly IMHO)
> - rename VM_MASK to say X86_EFLAGS_VM86 with that #ifdef remained
> - rest VM_MASK as it is
> 
> How do you think?
> 

I think what we should do is:

- Rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK (it's x86-specific after all)
- Have:

#if CONFIG_VM86
# define X86_VM_MASK X86_EFLAGS_VM
#else
# define X86_VM_MASK 0		/* No V86 support */
#endif

	-hpa
--
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/