linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 11/12] x86, mm, pat: Refactor !pat

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: <1432912660.23540.60.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 May 2015 09:17:40 -0600
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, jgross@...e.com,
	stefan.bader@...onical.com, luto@...capital.net, hmh@....eng.br,
	yigal@...xistor.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, Elliott@...com,
	mcgrof@...e.com, hch@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 11/12] x86, mm, pat: Refactor !pat_enabled handling

On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 17:13 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:27:08AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > This simply preserves the original error check in the code.  This error
> > check makes sure that all CPUs have the PAT feature supported when PAT
> > is enabled.  This error can only happen when heterogeneous CPUs are
> > installed/emulated on the system/guest.  This check may be paranoid, but
> > this cleanup is not meant to modify such an error check.
> 
> No, this is a ridiculous attempt to justify crazy code. Please do it
> right. If the cleanup makes the code more insane than it is, then don't
> do it in the first place.

Well, the change is based on this review comment.  So, I am not sure
what would be the right thing to do.  I am not 100% certain that this
check can be removed, either.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/22/148

> > Can you consider the patch 10/12-11/12 as a separate patchset from the
> > WT series?  If that is OK, I will resubmit 10/12 (BUG->panic) and 11/12
> > (commit log update).
> 
> That's not enough. 11/12 is a convoluted mess which needs splitting and
> more detailed explanations in the commit messages.
> 
> So no. Read what I said: do the cleanup *first* , *then* add the new
> functionality.
> 
> The WT patches shouldn't change all too much from what you have now.
> Also, 11/12 changes stuff which you add in 1/12. This churn is useless
> and shouldn't be there at all.
> 
> So you should be able to do the cleanup first and have the WT stuff
> ontop just fine.

OK, I will do the cleanup first and resubmit the patchset based on
tip/master.

Thanks,
-Toshi


--
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/