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:	Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:58:15 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <>
Cc:	Nadav Amit <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
	kvm <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/3] x86: Adding structs to reflect cpuid fields

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 03:36:43PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> We're talking about the case where the field is not reserved anymore and
> we _know_ that the vendor has just decided to grow the bitfield that
> precedes it.

We're talking about the case where you assumed that a reserved bit is 0
which is an unsafe assumption, the least.

> As soon as we know that the field is not reserved anymore, we
> obviously rely on reserved bits being zero in older processors, and in
> future processors from other vendors.

Again, this is an unsafe assumption.

> The trivial example is feature bits like XSAVE. We query them all the
> time without checking the family when they were first introduced,
> don't we?

The feature bits would obviously be 0 if features are not supported.

However, even there

"16 - Reserved - Do not count on the value."

I'm quoting Intel's CPUID doc 241618-037 from 2011 (there might be a
newer one though), the CPUID(1).ECX description.

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