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:   Wed, 13 Oct 2021 17:25:06 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        Ingo Molnar <>,,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        David Hildenbrand <>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,
        Juergen Gross <>, Deep Shah <>,
        VMware Inc <>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <>,
        Wanpeng Li <>,
        Jim Mattson <>,
        Joerg Roedel <>, Peter H Anvin <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Tony Luck <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Andi Kleen <>,
        Kirill Shutemov <>,
        Sean Christopherson <>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/11] x86/cpufeatures: Add TDX Guest CPU feature

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 01:19:23AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I'm amazed that it's so hard to see that this
>     use()
>     init()
> pattern is broken to begin with.
> So why are you arguing about the placement of this variable in the first
> place instead of actually looking at the code, wondering about the
> obscenity and then asking about the call ordering?
> In case that I might miss something important here due to my lack of CS
> education, please let me know.

I agree that's better.

I'd suggested doing setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST) early,
and then just check that instead of needing this new static variable.  I
think Boris said that's not possible because of some ordering reasons
which are eluding me (and I didn't have time to investigate).


Powered by blists - more mailing lists