linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: clear incorrectly forced X86_FEATURE_LAHF

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:06:30 -0300
From:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, borislav.petkov@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: clear incorrectly forced X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM flag

Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 08:53:30AM -0300, Kevin Winchester wrote:
>> Due to an erratum with certain AMD Athlon 64 processors, the BIOS may
>> need to force enable the LAHF_LM capability.  Unfortunately, in at
>> least one case, the BIOS does this even for processors that do not
>> support the functionality.
>>
>> Add a specific check that will clear the feature bit for processors
>> known not to support the LAHF/SAHF instructions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
>> ---
>>
>> While making this change, I noticed the clause above my code:
>>
>>     if((level >= 0x0f48 && level < 0x0f50) || level >= 0x0f58)
>>
>> It does not seem concerned with the possibility that some of the
>> upper 16 bits of level will be non-zero.  Is this intentional, or
>> should the upper 16 bits be masked off before the comparisons?
> 
> This should be ok because the upper 16 bits are 0x0000 for those
> revisions and therefore the whole u32 matches. Later revisions have the
> extended model bumped and they also match.
> 
>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c |    8 ++++++++
>>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>> index e2485b0..a2f0fe4 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>> @@ -400,6 +400,14 @@ static void __cpuinit init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>>  		level = cpuid_eax(1);
>>  		if((level >= 0x0f48 && level < 0x0f50) || level >= 0x0f58)
>>  			set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_REP_GOOD);
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Some BIOSes incorrectly set this feature, but only
>> +		 * Revision E (with Extended Model = 2) actually supports
>> +		 * it.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!(level & 0x00020000))
>> +			clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM);
> 
> let me check this internally next week because
> it seems that according to the Fam 0xf RevGuide
> (http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/25759.pdf) erratum 110
> applies to atleast 3 CPU revisions with extended model 0x1 too.

You are quite right, I will redo the patch.

> 
> By the way, what does /proc/cpuinfo say on your machine?
> 

processor	: 0
vendor_id	: AuthenticAMD
cpu family	: 15
model		: 4
model name	: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
stepping	: 10
cpu MHz		: 1800.000
cache size	: 512 KB
fpu		: yes
fpu_exception	: yes
cpuid level	: 1
wp		: yes
flags		: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext lm 3dnowext 3dnow rep_good
bogomips	: 3599.75
TLB size	: 1024 4K pages
clflush size	: 64
cache_alignment	: 64
address sizes	: 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management: ts fid vid ttp


-- 
Kevin Winchester

--
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/