linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce a new Linux defined feature flag for PAT support

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]

Date:	Thu, 08 May 2008 14:40:01 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce a new Linux defined feature flag for PAT
 support

On 08-05-08 12:19, Andi Kleen wrote:

>> Use a new Linux defined X86_FEATURE_PAT_GOOD feature flag to
> 
> Better would be PAT_TESTED or PAT_RANDOMLY_APPROVED. Most of these
> CPUs without PAT_GOOD have actually perfectly good PAT, as Windows
> proves every day.
> 
> The main flaw in all of this of course is that there is no procedure
> to test CPUs which do not have the flag set yet.

Quite. And hiding the fact that the CPU _should_ have perfectly good
PAT doesn't help any at all. The discussion turned into a mini-flame
war enough that now noone would even consider backing down, but this
current PAT setup just sucks plain and simple.

Rene.
--
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/