linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] X86, mpx: Intel MPX xstate feature definition

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 6 Dec 2013 19:55:34 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@...el.com>,
	Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] X86, mpx: Intel MPX xstate feature definition

On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 09:23:22AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/06/2013 05:46 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > I'm guessing this and the struct lwp_struct above is being added so that
> > you can have the LWP XSAVE area size? If so, you don't need it: LWP
> > XSAVE area is 128 bytes at offset 832 according to my manuals so I'd
> > guess having a u8 lwp_area[128] should be fine.
> > 
> Sure, but any reason to *not* document the internal structure?

Only that you might start getting remove-this-unused-struct patches. :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/