linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE

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: <4CAA455D.8000902@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:21:33 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL

On 10/04/2010 02:12 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, cpu_has() depends on:
>> #if defined(CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
> 
> Ahh. Right you are. The place that depends on just P6_NOP is the
> default NOP choice logic in <asm/nops.h>
> 
> But the end result ends up being the same: can we please clean this
> all up so that it isn't so confusing? Rather than add to the
> confusion?
> 

Agreed that this should be cleaned up.  However, in the meantime I'd
like to keep Borislav's patch in the tree since it makes the code
technically correct at least.

OK?

	-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/