linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] SFI: core 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]

Message-ID: <20090623171525.79be96c5@feng-desktop>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:15:25 +0800
From:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"sfi-devel@...plefirmware.org" <sfi-devel@...plefirmware.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] SFI: core support

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:03:47 +0800
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:56:43 +0800
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > > > +static u64 sfi_lapic_addr __initdata = APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE;
> > > > +#endif
> > > 
> > > if SFI adds a 'depends on X86_LOCAL_APIC' the ugly #ifdef can be
> > > dropped.
> > 
> > When Len designed the SFI spec, he considered the possibility of 
> > being used by multiple archs, so we chose not to add a x86 
> > dependency, though adding these
> > #ifdef does make code ugly :P
> 
> But the file i commented on is arch/x86/kernel/sfi.c, not 
> drivers/sfi/.

Now got your point, then we can think about adding a SFI_X86 Kconfig 
option specifically for x86 platform, which has dependency over the
LAPIC/IO_APIC

Thanks,
Feng

> 
> Those #ifdefs arent _that_ bad (and are used elsewhere in x86 code 
> too) - but generally some effort should be spent in new code on 
> trying to eliminate them.
> 
> > > In general, nice stuff - basically SFI is cleanly implemented 
> > > ACPI tables without any of the run-code-in-acpi-tables 
> > > complications, right?
> > 
> > Thanks for the comments, I really got inspired :). The expectation 
> > for SFI is to be able to run cleanly with CONFIG_ACPI=n, and it 
> > works fine on some intel platform.
> 
> Ok, cool!
> 
> 	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/