linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/14] x86/boot: enumerate documentation for the x86 hardware

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: <20160413151720.GT1990@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:17:20 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, bp@...en8.de,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, 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, rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org,
	robert.moore@...el.com, lv.zheng@...el.com, toshi.kani@...com,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, kozerkov@...allels.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, joro@...tes.org, tiwai@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/14] x86/boot: enumerate documentation for the x86
 hardware_subarch

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:01:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h
> > index 329254373479..bf9fea2f4591 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h
> > @@ -157,7 +157,42 @@ struct boot_params {
> >  	__u8  _pad9[276];				/* 0xeec */
> >  } __attribute__((packed));
> >  
> > -enum {
> > +/**
> > + * enum x86_hardware_subarch - x86 hardware subarchitecture
> 
> Could you add some prominent warning here, like:
> 
> > + * WARNING: the 'x86 subarch flag' is only used for legacy hacks, for platform
> > + *          features that are not easily enumerated or discoverable. You should
> > + *          not ever use this for new features.

With pleasure, added.

  Luis