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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed,  6 Apr 2016 17:06:30 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:	bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...capital.net,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
	jlee@...e.com, glin@...e.com, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk,
	andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v4 10/14] x86/cpu/intel: remove not needed paravirt_enabled() for f00f work around

The X86_BUG_F00F work around is responsible for fixing up the error
generated on attempted F00F exploitation from an OOPS to a SIGILL.
There is no reason why this code should not be allowed to run on
PV guest on a F00F-affected CPU -- it would simply never trigger.
The pv_enabled() check was there only to avoid printing the f00f
workaround, so removing the check is purely a cosmetic change.

Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
index f71a34944b56..66509285ffdd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
@@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
 	 * The Quark is also family 5, but does not have the same bug.
 	 */
 	clear_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_F00F);
-	if (!paravirt_enabled() && c->x86 == 5 && c->x86_model < 9) {
+	if (c->x86 == 5 && c->x86_model < 9) {
 		static int f00f_workaround_enabled;
 
 		set_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_F00F);
-- 
2.7.2

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ