linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] x86: Add "virt 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: <48C55E0E.2090200@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:17:02 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Sheng Yang <sheng.yang@...el.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] x86: Add "virt flags"

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> hm, i think extending the already existing flags category sounds like 
>> a better solution than the separate virtual CPU flags line in 
>> /proc/cpuinfo. We already have self-invented flag entries (such as 
>> X86_FEATURE_NOPL), and adding more for virtualization would be quite 
>> natural to do, as long as it's reasonably close to the meaning of a 
>> 'CPU feature'.
>>
>> Peter, what would be your preference?
>>
> 
> It probably makes sense to separate these out as a separate word, 
> especially if they come from the hardware in any reasonable way.  But 
> yes, adding them to the feature array makes sense.
> 

Just to clarify:

I'm suggesting adding these to the existing feature flags array, in a 
separate binary word.

	-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/