linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] x86: make MP a required-feature on 64-bit

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: <53A4981F.3060901@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:22:55 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] x86: make MP  a required-feature on 64-bit

On 06/20/2014 01:00 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:54:14AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> No, it has to be cpu_has() -- the dynamic, CPU-specific version.
> 
> Ok, sry, but I have to ask: why cpu_has? Why not boot_cpu_has and thus
> static_cpu_has_safe?
> 

Because the whole point is testing each CPU and warn if it is unsuitable.

static-anything is just plain useless, because we test this once for
each CPU and patching a branch that we are never going to cross again is
just wasted effort.

	-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/