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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALCETrX0D3pM29VCve68nvZNQEYNXNMp90HZes5CMoWWs0t7AA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:56:06 -0700 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, ashok.raj@...el.com, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@...el.com>, Wan Zongshun <Vincent.Wan@....com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/cpu: Move sparsely used bit leafs into scattered features (was: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/cpufeature: Add CLZERO feature) On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 09:22:50PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> And btw, those Intel QoS single bit defines and the XSAVE stuff there >> should move to that function too - that's a pure waste having them in >> the cap_flags array. I'll fix that. > > I.e., something like that (I'm jetlagged and I can't sleep, bah :-\). > > So this one builds but no further guarantees. It looks straightforward > though. > > Not-yet-signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> > > --- > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h > index 9727b3b48bd1..ea109b58a864 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ > #include <asm/disabled-features.h> > #endif > > -#define NCAPINTS 13 /* N 32-bit words worth of info */ > +#define NCAPINTS 10 /* N 32-bit words worth of info */ > #define NBUGINTS 1 /* N 32-bit bug flags */ > > /* > @@ -198,6 +198,15 @@ > #define X86_FEATURE_HWP_EPP ( 7*32+13) /* Intel HWP_EPP */ > #define X86_FEATURE_HWP_PKG_REQ ( 7*32+14) /* Intel HWP_PKG_REQ */ > #define X86_FEATURE_INTEL_PT ( 7*32+15) /* Intel Processor Trace */ > +/* Extended state features, CPUID level 0x0000000d:1 (eax) */ > +#define X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT (7*32+ 16) /* XSAVEOPT */ > +#define X86_FEATURE_XSAVEC (7*32+ 17) /* XSAVEC */ > +#define X86_FEATURE_XGETBV1 (7*32+ 18) /* XGETBV with ECX = 1 */ > +#define X86_FEATURE_XSAVES (7*32+ 19) /* XSAVES/XRSTORS */ How few features in one leaf do we need before calling it scattered makes sense? These four might make sense to keep as is... > +/* Intel-defined CPU QoS Sub-leaf, CPUID level 0x0000000F:0 (edx) */ > +#define X86_FEATURE_CQM_LLC (7*32+ 20) /* LLC QoS if 1 */ > +/* Intel-defined CPU QoS Sub-leaf, CPUID level 0x0000000F:1 (edx) */ > +#define X86_FEATURE_CQM_OCCUP_LLC (7*32+ 21) /* LLC occupancy monitoring if 1 */ > ...whereas this looks totally reasonable. FWIW, we have a ton of thses things. Would it make sense to convert this to a text file giving features and their CPUID positions that generates the defines and the code to enumerate them? --Andy -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists