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  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]
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:49:15 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Matteo Croce <technoboy85@...il.com>,
	Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@...net.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode

On 11/10/2009 09:24 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>>
>> In the short term, yes, of course.  However, if we're going to do
>> emulation, we might as well do it right.
> 
> Why is using KVM doing it right ? It sounds like its doing it slowly,
> and hideously memory inefficiently. You are solving an uninteresting
> general case problem when you just need two tiny fixups (or perhaps 3 if
> you want to fix up early x86-64 prefetch)

Why do we only need "two tiny fixups"?  Where do we draw the line in
terms of ISA compatibility?  One could easily argue that the Right
Thing[TM] is to be able to process any optional instruction -- otherwise
one has a very difficult place to draw a line.

Consider SSE3, for example.  Why should the same concept not apply to
SSE3 instructions as to CMOV?
	
	-hpa
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists