| 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: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:24:47 -0800 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org> CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kay.sievers@...y.org, trenn@...e.de, davej@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, hpa@...or.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, ying.huang@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Add driver auto probing for x86 features > Can you guarantee that there is no asymmetric system already working > today? I used to have an asymmetric system myself, but we generally subset the CPU feature flags to be the same everywhere and I didn't change any per CPU stepping checks as they were there. > If you can't, then your approach could cause a regression. This > is why I am asking for an API change to let drivers pass a specific CPU > to x86_match_cpu(). There are at least two drivers who would take > benefit of this. Your patch set is supposed to only add driver > auto-loading, and while cleaning up the code in the process is nice, I > think you should avoid driver behavior changes, these are out of scope > for such a patch set. I undoed that change to the coretemp driver and there's no other AFAIK. Generally most drivers only check the boot cpu. -Andi -- 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