linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: PAT: fix ambiguous paranoia check in pat

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: <48500CED.4020906@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:35:41 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
CC:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: PAT: fix ambiguous paranoia check in	pat_init()

Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> 
> For Intel all family 0xf CPUs, and family 6 CPUs starting with model
> 15 are whitelisted.
> 

Arg, sorry, I read the code brokenly.  You're right, of course.

> There seem to be other Intel CPUs that advertise PAT support.
> See cpuinfo output at http://gentoo-wiki.com/Safe_Cflags
> E.g. Pentium M (model 13), Celeron (model 6), Pentium III (model 8).
> (Not sure how correct this information is, though)

Yes, those all have PAT enabled.

> Turn the white- into a blacklist for those remaining CPUs until they
> are verified?

Yes, that would be a suitable course of action; moving it to 
Intel-specific code.  Then the Intel people can worry about lifting the 
remaining blacklisted CPUs.

	-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/