linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] Enabling Ring 3 MONITOR/MWAIT feature for Knights Landing

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611091518210.3501@nanos>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:31:56 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Grzegorz Andrejczuk <grzegorz.andrejczuk@...el.com>
cc:     mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, bp@...e.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, lukasz.daniluk@...el.com,
        james.h.cownie@...el.com, jacob.jun.pan@...el.com,
        Piotr.Luc@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] Enabling Ring 3 MONITOR/MWAIT feature for Knights
 Landing

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Grzegorz Andrejczuk wrote:

> These patches enable Intel Xeon Phi x200 feature to use MONITOR/MWAIT
> instruction in ring 3 (userspace) Patches set MSR 0x140 for all logical CPUs.
> Then expose it as CPU feature and introduces elf HWCAP capability for x86.
> Reference:
> https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2016/10/06/intel-xeon-phi-product-family-x200-knl-user-mode-ring-3-monitor-and-mwait
> 
> v9:
> Removed PHI from defines

Do I really have to spell out everything? I asked you several times to get
rid of all PHI associations except for the feature detection logic.

But no, you still insist on it being a PHI special feature and once it
becomes available on other models, which can be expected, we can deal with
the cleanup and a PHI specific kernel parameter which we have to support
forever.

I'm slowly starting to get really grumpy. Your attitude of just addressing
review comments in the most minimal way w/o thinking about the big picture
is annoying.

This is hillarious. 9 versions of that simple thing, just because you
insist on slapping PHI to everything despite being told otherwise.

I do not care about the time you waste with this, but I very much care
about the time you steal from me. 

If you can't be bothered to send something which addresses _ALL_ my review
comments, then so be it. The next version is the last one I'm going to look
at.

Thanks,

	tglx