linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <73c1f2160908130855h128c9908h486d583ee9fdcea5@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:55:32 -0400
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>, mikpe@...uu.se,
	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: Clear incorrectly forced X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM 
	flag

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Kevin
Winchester<kjwinchester@...il.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/13 Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Borislav Petkov<borislav.petkov@....com> wrote:
>>> From: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Borislav: turn off cpuid bit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>>> index e2485b0..9cd6fc7 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
>>> @@ -400,6 +400,22 @@ 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 force this feature, but only K8
>>> +                * revision D (model = 0x14) and later actually support it.
>>> +                */
>>> +               if (c->x86_model < 0x14) {
>>
>> Shouldn't you test that the flag is actually set before trying to clear it?
>>
>
> Possibly.  If there were some concern that:
>
> - The extra instructions would cause a performance impact, and the
> test was significantly faster than the clear.

Testing a bit is cheap and MSR accesses are not.

> - The extra instructions might actually cause more problems if the
> flag is not set.

These MSRs don't exist on older cpus and will cause a fault, which is
handled at additional cost.

> Then we would certainly want to test it first.  In my opinion, a few
> simple instructions to clear the flag and the CPUID bit will not
> affect performance, and clearing a flag that is already cleared should
> not cause any additional problems, so I would not bother testing the
> flag first.  That results in fewer lines of code to change.

--
Brian Gerst
--
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/