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: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:57:32 -0500 From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest filtering On 2/4/2019 10:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 04:38:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> +static const struct x86_cpu_desc isolation_ucodes[] = { >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 9, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 10, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 11, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE, 12, 0x0000004e), > >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 10, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 11, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 12, 0x0000004e), >> + INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP, 13, 0x0000004e), > > Do we want a special stepping (0 / -1) to be able to denote 'all' ? > Something like as below? #define X86_STEPPING_ANY 0xff As my understanding, the microcode version for each stepping is independent and irrelevant. The 0x0000004e should be just coincidence. If so, I don't think X86_STEPPING_ANY is very useful. Andi, if I'm wrong please correct me. Thanks, Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists