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  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:	Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:47:27 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Borislav Petkov <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	lkml <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Borislav Petkov <> wrote:
> ba0593bf553c450a03dbc5f8c1f0ff58b778a0c8 cleared the aforementioned
> cpuid bit only on 32-bit due to various problems with Virtual PC. This
> somehow got lost during the 32- + 64-bit merge so restore the feature
> bit on 64-bit. For that, set it explicitly for non-constant arguments of
> cpu_has(). Update comment for future reference.

I don't think this is right.

The cpu_has() logic depends not on x86-64, but on X86_P6_NOP.

Which has

        depends on X86_64
        depends on (MCORE2 || MPENTIUM4 || MPSC)

as its config rules, not just X86_64.

So I think your patch is bogus. It makes the current situation even
_more_ confusing than it is.

So what is it? Should we get rid of that odd X86_P6_NOP thing
entirely? Or should we use it consistently for the "this machine has
NOPL"? Should we always use P6_NOP for x86-64 and just remove the
"MCORE2 || MPENTIUM4 || MPSC" thing?

Whatever we do, I don't think this patch is the right one.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists