linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] wire up CPU features to udev based module loading

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: <527C1911.9030900@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:49:53 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	x86@...nel.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] wire up CPU features to udev based module loading

On 11/07/2013 02:15 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> 
> That would involve repurposing/generalizing a bit more of the existing
> x86-only code than I did the first time around, but if you (as x86
> maintainers) are happy with that, I'm all for it.
> 
> I do have a couple of questions then
> - the module aliases host tool has no arch specific dependencies at
> all except having x86cpu as one of the entries: would you mind
> dropping the x86 prefix there? Or rather add dependencies on $ARCH?
> (If we drop it there, we basically end up with 'cpu:' everywhere)

I think it makes sense to indicate what kind of CPU the string refers
to, as the top-level indicator of what is going on.  This might be
possible to macroize the generation of this prefix, though.

> - in the vendor/family/model case, it may be preferable to drop these
> fields entirely from certain modules' aliases if they match on 'any'
> (provided that the module tools permit this) rather than add
> architecture, variant, revision, etc  fields for all architectures if
> they can only ever match on one

I think that can be CPU dependent.

> - some of the X86_ macros would probable be redefined in terms of the
> generic macros rather than the other way around, which would result in
> some changes under arch/x86 as well, is that acceptable for you?

If you are talking about X86_FEATURE_* then almost certainly no,
although I'm willing to listen to what you have in mind.

	-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/