linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802141235570.1292@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:39:09 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/microcode/intel: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of
 32-bit

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 	if (c->x86_cache_size >= 0)
> > 		seq_printf(m, "cache size\t: %d KB\n", c->x86_cache_size);
> > 
> > which is silly, because that really can be done with:
> > 
> > 	if (c->x86_cache_size)
> > 
> > as there is no point in printing 'cache size 0KB', which means
> > x86_cache_size can be made unsigned int, which makes sense because cache
> > size < 0 does not at all.
> 
> Currently 0MB means "I know you have no cache" (early slot 1 celeron),
> while not printing it means 'I have no clue'

Cute. I hope the 3 slot1 celeron users will not go wild if their
/proc/cpuinfo now claims to have no clue about caches.

Thanks,

	tglx