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, 22 Apr 2016 09:58:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>, Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] perf/x86/intel/pt: IP filtering register/cpuid bits On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 08:55:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > I have to disagree here. The MSRs itself can really go into msr-index.h while > > the bit definitions might go elsewhere. What's wrong with having all MSRs at a > > central place? > > Same reason as for pci_ids.h - to contain only MSRs which are used in > multiple compilation units. That's really not the same thing. pci ids are issued by a gazillion of vendors for a bazillion of different devices. There is no consistent view for them. MSRs on the other hand are x86 specific registers nicely defined in the SDM/APM and having at least the MSR defines in a single header makes a lot of sense. Thanks, tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists