linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] intel_idle: mention assumption that wbinvd is not needed

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:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:14:27 +0300 (MSK)
From:   Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_idle: mention assumption that wbinvd is not
 needed

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > @@ -20,7 +20,11 @@
> >   * All CPUs have same idle states as boot CPU
> >   *
> >   * Chipset BM_STS (bus master status) bit is a NOP
> > - *     for preventing entry into deep C-stats
> > + *     for preventing entry into deep C-states
> > + *
> > + * CPU will flush caches as needed when entering a C-state via MWAIT
> 
> I would rephrase this to mention that the above actually is an assumption.

This comment block is by itself a list of assumptions. It begins with heading
"Design Assumptions" and then lists two assumptions. This patch adds a third
one.

With that clarified, do you still need me to change this hunk?

> 
> > + *     (in contrast to entering ACPI C3, where acpi_idle driver is
> 
> And mentioning acpi_idle here is not needed; it would be sufficient to
> say something like "in which case the WBINVD instruction needs to be
> executed to flush the caches".

I see, thanks, I will change this for v2 once the above is cleared up.

Thanks.
Alexander