[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3b104cd-72d9-7f5c-116b-414c6ebf448d@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 07:19:21 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@...rceware.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: x86 CPU features detection for applications (and AMX)
On 7/7/21 11:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This looks basically like someone dumped a bunch of CPUID bit values and
>> exposed them to applications without considering whether applications
>> would ever need them. For instance, why would an app ever care about:
>>
>> PKS – Protection keys for supervisor-mode pages.
>>
>> And how could glibc ever give applications accurate information about
>> whether PKS "is supported by the operating system"? It just plain
>> doesn't know, or at least only knows from a really weak ABI like
>> /proc/cpuinfo.
> glibc is expected to mask these bits for CPU_FEATURE_USABLE because they
> have unknown semantics (to glibc).
OK, so if I call CPU_FEATURE_USABLE(PKS) on a system *WITH* PKS
supported in the operating system, I'll get false from an interface that
claims to be:
> This macro returns a nonzero value (true) if the processor has the
> feature name and the feature is supported by the operating system.
The interface just seems buggy by *design*.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists