linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Use feature bit names in clearcpuid=

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, 22 Sep 2020 10:03:03 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Use feature bit names in clearcpuid=

On Sun, Sep 20 2020 at 17:42, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so tglx hates this clearcpuid= interface where you have to give the
> X86_FEATURE array indices in order to disable a feature bit for testing.
> Below is a first attempt (lightly tested in a VM only) to accept the bit
> names from /proc/cpuinfo too.
>
> I say "too" because not all feature bits have names and we would still
> have to support the numbers. Yeah, yuck.
>
> An exemplary cmdline would then be something like:
>
> clearcpuid=de,440,smca,succory,bmi1,3dnow ("succory" is wrong on
> purpose).
>
> and it says:
>
> [    0.000000] Clearing CPUID bits: de 13:24 smca bmi1 3dnow
>
> Also, I'm thinking we should taint the kernel when this option is used.
>
> Thoughts?

Yes, instead of making it differently horrible, can we finally remove that
nonsense which should have never been there in the first place?

Thanks,

        tglx