linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFT v2] x86: move cacheinfo sysfs to generic cacheinfo infrastructure

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: <54ECBE4D.6050608@arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:09:17 +0000
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v2] x86: move cacheinfo sysfs to generic cacheinfo
 infrastructure

Hi Boris,

On 24/02/15 17:57, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 06:14:25PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>   - Rebased on v4.0-rc1
>>   - Fixed lockdep warning reported by Borislav
>
> You probably have fixed the lockdep splat but not the NULL pointer
> dereference which was there in the first mail I sent you. I'd suggest
> you find an AMD box with an L3 and do some testing yourself before
> sending out another version.
>

Sorry for the trouble and thanks for giving it a try. OK I will try to
find one, but it may be difficult to grab one.

> Also, when testing, do a snapshot of the sysfs cache hierarchy by doing:
>
> grep . -EriIn /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu?/cache/*
>

Yes I have checked it on x86.

> before your changes and after and check for differences.
>

And they are exactly same.

> We can't allow ourselves any differences because this is an API.
>

As I mentioned to Ingo in the other email, that shouldn't happen as
generic code is almost based on existing x86 implementation. It was
moved to avoid further duplication while adding support to arm/arm64
and also to consolidate multiple existing duplicate implementations
(x86, ia64, s390 and ppc)

Regards,
Sudeep

--
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/