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  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:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:51:05 -0700
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Christopherson Sean J <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86/cpufeatures: Combine word 11 and 12 into new
 scattered features word 11

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:41:23PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + Radim and Paolo. See upthread for context.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:17:02AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > Alternatively - and what I think is the better solution - would be to
> > > remove those BUILD_BUG_ONs in x86_feature_cpuid and filter out the
> > > Linux-defined leafs dynamically. This way the array won't have holes in
> > > it.
> > 
> > Maybe adding a dummy slot in cpuid_leafs in patch 0002 to avoid the
> > compilation errors?
> 
> Maybe you didn't read what you're replying to: "This way the array
> won't have holes in it". Ontop of yours:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> index d78a61408243..03d6f3f7b27c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static const struct cpuid_reg reverse_cpuid[] = {
>  	[CPUID_8000_0001_ECX] = {0x80000001, 0, CPUID_ECX},
>  	[CPUID_7_0_EBX]       = {         7, 0, CPUID_EBX},
>  	[CPUID_D_1_EAX]       = {       0xd, 1, CPUID_EAX},
> +	[CPUID_7_1_EAX]       = {         7, 1, CPUID_EAX},

CPUID_7_1_EAX is defined in patch 0003. Should I combine patch 0002 and 0003
into one patch?

>  	[CPUID_8000_0008_EBX] = {0x80000008, 0, CPUID_EBX},
>  	[CPUID_6_EAX]         = {         6, 0, CPUID_EAX},
>  	[CPUID_8000_000A_EDX] = {0x8000000a, 0, CPUID_EDX},
> @@ -59,8 +60,9 @@ static __always_inline struct cpuid_reg x86_feature_cpuid(unsigned x86_feature)
>  {
>  	unsigned x86_leaf = x86_feature / 32;
>  
> -	BUILD_BUG_ON(x86_leaf >= ARRAY_SIZE(reverse_cpuid));
> -	BUILD_BUG_ON(reverse_cpuid[x86_leaf].function == 0);
> +	if (x86_leaf == CPUID_LNX_1 ||
> +	    x86_leaf == CPUID_LNX_4)
> +		return NULL;

Need to check CPUID_LNX_2 and CPUID_LNX_3 as well?

>  
>  	return reverse_cpuid[x86_leaf];
>  }
> 
> That's what I mean with filter out dynamically.

Thanks.

-Fenghua

Powered by blists - more mailing lists