linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/9] x86, xsave: xsave/xrstor 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:	Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:31:41 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"roland@...hat.com" <roland@...hat.com>,
	"drepper@...hat.com" <drepper@...hat.com>,
	"mikpe@...uu.se" <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	"chrisw@...s-sol.org" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] x86, xsave: xsave/xrstor support

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> 
>>> hpa, these patches just apply fine to tip/master. Can you please 
>>> arrange the tip/x86/xsave tree accordingly? or do I need to do 
>>> something else to smooth this process?
>> This is awkward, since that means this is "derived topic".  Most of 
>> the changes are orthogonal and relatively trivial to fix up at merge 
>> time, so I would prefer to keep them separate.
> 
> Well, in this case the conflicts seem to be quite heavy, so i'd suggest 
> to use the method we have used for x86/x2apic and for xen-64bit:
> 
> Merge the affected topics into tip/x86/core. Then merge x86/core into 
> x86/xsave, and put the xsave patches ontop of that base.
> 
> This way x86/xsave is a 'derived' topic and optional until it's proven, 
> but one that is still mergable once all the dependent topics go 
> upstream. We'd only have to rebase it in the (unlikely) event of there 
> being some major problem with any of the topics merged into x86/core.
> 
> ok?

It somewhat concerns me, because one of the conflicts is generated by 
collision with x2apic.  The rest of them I don't think are too problematic.

Most of the conflicts are of the type "orthogonal transformations to the 
same chunk of code", which doesn't make them less annoying.

	-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/