linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 03/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add stub driver for In-Field Scan

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]

Message-ID: <YnKpw2kGY2FEFWcW@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 18:28:51 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "markgross@...nel.org" <markgross@...nel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" 
        <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/10] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Add stub driver for
 In-Field Scan

On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 04:24:50PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > We really don't need more match id tables with gazillions of CPU models.
> 
> Sadly we do :-(

So what was the reasoning about CPUID bits being so expensive so that we
need to match models? Ditto for the splitlock situation - that thing is
supported on a bunch of models but nope, not a CPUID bit in sight. What
was the convincing argument that made hw folks give a CPUID bit to the
PPIN thing? Perhaps we could use it there too. :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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