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]
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:50:05 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
	Qiaowei Ren <>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/10] x86, mpx: add macro cpu_has_mpx

On 06/19/2014 11:02 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 06/18/2014 09:25 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> How about something like the attached patch?
>> This lets us use static_cpu_has() for the checks, and allows us to
>> easily add new checks for other features that might be compile-time
>> disabled.
> Hmm... I would like something similar to required-features.h which
> reflect features which *cannot* be enabled or will always be ignored; we
> actually already have a handful of those

Could you elaborate a bit?  I'll try and include them in the approach to
make sure it works broadly.

Is there a benefit to the required-features.h approach that's missing
from mine?  I _believe_ all of the compiler optimization around
__builtin_constant_p() continues to work with the inline function
instead of the #defines and bitmasks.  I think the inline function
approach is a bit easier to work with.

Could the required-features.h approach just be from a time before
__builtin_constant_p() worked well across inlines?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists