linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: static_cpu_has_safe: discard dynamic check after init

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: <CALCETrX9HAKf+nV_8BCuQb3LOA1E5pBH2w=XdT-L=OFDJNTj5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:26:38 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: static_cpu_has_safe: discard dynamic check after init

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 02:57:14PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Patch removing it below.
>
> Andy has a point: I should simply drop static_cpu_has and kill the "_safe"
> suffix of the remaining variant:
>

Is this on top of Brian's patch?  I think we should do both or neither.

--Andy