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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:50:35 -0800 From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, mingo@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com, bp@...e.de, hpa@...or.com, luto@...capital.net, sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/fpu: Fix early FPU command-line parsing On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:28:58PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > +static void __init fpu__init_parse_early_param(void) > > +{ > > + /* > > + * No need to check "eagerfpu=auto" again, since it is the > > + * initial default. > > + */ > > + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "eagerfpu=off")) > > + eagerfpu = DISABLE; > > + else if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "eagerfpu=on")) > > + eagerfpu = ENABLE; > > + > > + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "no387")) > > + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_FPU); > > + > > + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "nofxsr")) { > > + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_FXSR); > > + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_FXSR_OPT); > > + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_XMM); > > + } > > + > > + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "noxsave")) > > + fpu__xstate_clear_all_cpu_caps(); > > + > > + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "noxsaveopt")) > > + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_XSAVEOPT); > > + > > + if (cmdline_find_option_bool(boot_command_line, "noxsaves")) > > + setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES); > > This could certainly be improved: we're iterating over the *whole* > command line each time for each option unconditionally instead of > iterating word by word and comparing it with all strings. > > We'd need something like cmdline_for_each_word() or so, though... > That is a good point. I will work on it. Thanks, Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists