linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/16] x86: probe assembler capabilities via kconfig instead of makefile

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: <CAK7LNATV4GeDDYwecZWNH7xxikZjY2VFZ3EYgXAbnbbVsVM+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 02:21:26 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] x86: probe assembler capabilities via kconfig
 instead of makefile

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:17 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can 11 just be rebased with 8 dropped?
>
> 8 adds comments to one place. 11 moves them to another place, while
> doing other things.
>
> Your desire is to skip the first step? I guess there's no problem with
> this, but I'm curious to learn why.

If desired, I will swap the order of 8 and 11.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada