linux-kernel - Re: enable padlock on x86

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: <20090314114732.GB3805@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:47:32 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc>
Cc:	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, mail@...iasvolk.de
Subject: Re: enable padlock on x86_64


* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc> wrote:

> To enable the padlock unit, two msr bits have to flipped. This is allready
> done in the 32bit path and is missing in the other. Instead of copy paste
> the code, I merged the 64bit part into the 32bit part. The things that
> changed during the merge:
> - the fixups from x86_64 (family 6, model >= 15) were not present in 32bit
>   path but are now. They might be usefull if this CPU is booted in 32bit
>   mode.
> - the fixups which are executed via ->c_early_init() are now executed
>   again via ->c_init(). This was done in the 64bit path and without this I
>   lost the constant_tsc flag. However, tsc is not useable due to
> | [    2.023006] Marking TSC unstable due to TSC halts in idle
> | [    2.500082] Clocksource tsc unstable (delta = -326436711 ns)
> 
> The two patches are against the current tip tree. A version of 
> patch 1 against current -rc8 is available at [0].

thanks, looks good. We can apply #1 to -tip just fine - but a 
drivers/crypto/ change should go via the crypto tree. Can the 
crypto tree apply #2 without having #1 right away? [i.e. will it 
still build and boot fine - even though the padlock 
functionality might not be fully present on 32-bit? ]

Then in 2.6.30 once both the x86 tree and the crypto tree are 
merged we'll have both changes combined.

Does that sound good?

	Ingo
--
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/