linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] x86 fixes

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809081108250.3117@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc:	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 fixes

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>  - X86_GENERIC means _other_ things too, like doing a 128-bit cacheline 
>    just so that it won't suck horribly on P4's even if it's otherwise 
>    tuned for a good microarchitecture.

Hmm. The only other thing seems to be X86_INTEL_USERCOPY. Which doesn't 
seem to be something we want to force either.

And I have to say, that whole X86_GENERIC -> L1_CACHE_BYTES=128 -> 
cache_line_size() -> SLAB/SLUB/SLOB alignment worries me too. Looking at 
that, I really don't feel like I want to force 128-byte alignment on 
everybody, just because the P4 was a pig in cacheline size.

So NOPL really stands out as being different from the other things that 
X86_GENERIC does.

			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/