| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:17:28 -0700 From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 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 Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > 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. Another piece of the confusion I noticed a couple of days ago: X86_MINIMUM_CPU_FAMILY defaults to "6" if X86_32 && X86_P6_NOP; whereas X86_P6_NOP depends on X86_64. Hugh -- 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