linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: add support DM&P devices

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YWsRXfdqEpHyPVpL@zn.tnic>
Date:   Sat, 16 Oct 2021 19:52:29 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Marcos Del Sol Vives <marcos@...a.pet>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add support DM&P devices

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 06:29:12PM +0000, Marcos Del Sol Vives wrote:
> Should I change it then?

Yes please.

> Should I also change the other two, possibly in a different patch?

So I looked at

  8d02c2110b3f ("x86: configuration options to compile out x86 CPU support code")

which added some of those !64_BIT deps. And when you look at

config X86_32
        def_bool !64BIT

and having those items either depend on "!64BIT" or on "X86_32" should
be equivalent. Former is just weird to have in other Kconfig items
except X86_32.

So yes, please, in a separate patch.

> I used that text because it's what every other x86 processor flag is
> also using, even those that also do not do any special initialization.
> 
> For example, the CPU_SUP_UMC_32 flag also has the same warning, yet
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/umc.c reads "UMC chips appear to be only either 386
> or 486, so no special init takes place". I thus assumed this was
> standard text, in case at some point an special init is required.

Yah, sounds like they've all been copy-pasted from some item which
really needs special init.

> Do you think it should be then reworded, or should I keep it to mantain
> consistency with other existing flag descriptions?

Yeah, please write the correct statement in there and do not take the
other entries too seriosly - looks like semi-automatic copy-paste took
place.

> Greetings and thanks for your time,

Ditto and you're welcome!

:-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette