[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:00:37 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] x86/fault: Improve kernel-executing-user-memory handling
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:08 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 09:24:37AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) && defined(CONFIG_CPU_SUP_AMD)
> > + if (likely(boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD
> > + || boot_cpu_data.x86 != 0xf))
>
> Same nitpick as for the other patch. Maybe we wan a little inline
> helper for the specific erratum that includes the vendor and family
> checks in adddition to using IS_ENABLED for the config options?
I defer to Boris as to exactly what condition we should check here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists