linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode revisions

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

Message-ID: <20181025232309.6bbxedhkf2ffndsw@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:23:09 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        peterz@...radead.org, x86@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
        kan.liang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/cpufeature: Add facility to match microcode
 revisions

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:20:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Andi,
> 
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:19:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > There is no point to return the pointer because it's not a compound
> > > structure. If you want to provide the possibility to use the index then
> > > return the index and an error code if it does not match.
> > 
> > It will be useful with the driver_data pointer, which you short sightedly
> > forced me to remove, and likely will need to be readded at some point
> > anyways if this gets more widely used.
> 
> It's good and established practice not to add functionality on a 'might be
> used' basis. If you'd provide at least one or two patches which demonstrate
> how that is useful then that would be convincing.
> 
> >  At least with the pointer not all callers will need to be changed then.
> 
> It doesn't need to be changed at all, when done correctly.

Thanks.

I opted for the simpler method of returning a boolean now.

-Andi