| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:59:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: david@...g.hm cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux@...dersweb.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi-suse@...stfloor.org> Subject: Re: [BUG] x86 kenel won't boot under Virtual PC On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, david@...g.hm wrote: > > I always understood the CPU selection to be "this CPU and ones compatible with > it will work, others won't" unless generic was enabled. No. Read the help text.. Yes, we care about features that MATTER. But if compiles start using features that don't really matter, and make a specific kernel _too_ specific, then we need to reign in the madness. IOW, it's a balance. On one hand, yes, the uarch makes sense. On the other, it's just stupid to have to worry about details that don't realistically make any difference at all - except whether the machine works or not. And yes, we could just put this up as a Virtual PC bug. It clearly is. But in the end, it _still_ all boils down to a balance between "do we actually win anything by using NOPL statically" vs "do we lose anything by being too damn inconvenient". Linus -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists