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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 22:14:02 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <>
To:     Xiaoyao Li <>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Sean Christopherson <>,
        kvm list <>,
        LKML <>, X86 ML <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Arvind Sankar <>,
        Tony Luck <>,
        Fenghua Yu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/8] x86/split_lock: Introduce flag X86_FEATURE_SLD_FATAL
 and drop sld_state

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:03 PM Xiaoyao Li <> wrote:
> Introduce a synthetic feature flag X86_FEATURE_SLD_FATAL, which means
> kernel is in sld_fatal mode if set.
> Now sld_state is not needed any more that the state of SLD can be

Is it too much to ask for Intel to actually allocate and define a
CPUID bit that means "this CPU *always* sends #AC on a split lock"?
This would be a pure documentation change, but it would make this
architectural rather than something that each hypervisor needs to hack

Meanwhile, I don't see why adding a cpufeature flag is worthwhile to
avoid a less bizarre global variable.  There's no performance issue
here, and the old code looked a lot more comprehensible than the new

Powered by blists - more mailing lists