linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 01/23] perf/x86: Support outputting XMM registers

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]

Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:55:00 -0400
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 01/23] perf/x86: Support outputting XMM registers



On 3/26/2019 9:47 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Liang, Kan wrote:
>> On 3/25/2019 8:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> -#define REG_RESERVED (~((1ULL << PERF_REG_X86_MAX) - 1ULL))
>> +#define REG_RESERVED	0
>
> What's the point of having this around?

I once thought it may be kept for future extension if we have more regs.
But, yes, we should remove it completely for now.

Thanks,
Kan

> 
>>   int perf_reg_validate(u64 mask)
>>   {
>>   	if (!mask || mask & REG_RESERVED)
>>   		return -EINVAL;
> 
>   mask & 0 == 0, right? So which bits are you checking here?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>