linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/14] v2 multi-die/package topology support

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:33:38 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] v2 multi-die/package topology support

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 02:50:58AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> If one were to make a change here, I'd consider adding the (physical) die_id,
> though it is already in sysfs topology as an attribute.

 From: Documentation/x86/topology.txt

"The kernel does not care about the concept of physical sockets because
a socket has no relevance to software. It's an electromechanical
component. In the past a socket always contained a single package
(see below), but with the advent of Multi Chip Modules (MCM) a socket
can hold more than one package. So there might be still references to
sockets in the code, but they are of historical nature and should be
cleaned up."

So that die thing has only small relevance to some software, as you say:

"These topology changes primarily impact parts of the kernel and some
applciations that care about package MSR scope."

So if there's no real need to add it there, then it probably shouldn't
be added. The topology is already too complex - so much so, that tools
are even generating PDFs from it :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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