linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest filtering

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: <20190204160454.GE29639@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:04:54 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.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 Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:57:32AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Huh?

Why are we looking at the stepping then?

x86_match_cpu_with_stepping() <---

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.