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: <Yu4wON0MRGH7h5Jv@zn.tnic>
Date:   Sat, 6 Aug 2022 11:11:20 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, ira.weiny@...el.com,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] x86/entry: Store CPU info on exception entry

On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 11:01:06AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It's still 2 instructions more than what we had before, while the 
> fault-time CPU number is only needed infrequently AFAICS.

With the amount of logical cores ever increasing and how CPU packages
(nodes, L3 sharing, you name it) get more and more complex topology,
I'd say the 2 insns to show the CPU number in every exception is a good
thing to do.

Arguably, we probably should've even done it already...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ