[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101005165356.GA6569@a1.tnic>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:53:56 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ryan@...osecc.com,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/cpu] x86, cpu: Fix X86_FEATURE_NOPL
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 09:30:37AM -0700
> On 10/5/2010 2:47 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> >tag it for -stable too?
> >
>
> What is the flaw that justifies it for stable, or even .36? It
> seems relatively harmless, with at most a very minor performance
> issue, unless I'm missing something?
I was thinking more along the lines of this being partially broken
when supplying non-constant arguments to cpu_has(), something like
<arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c:show_cpuinfo()>, for example. But all this
could cause is /proc/cpuinfo not to report the "nopl" feature bit. I
guess this is too minor an issue to even to be considered for stable.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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