linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: EFER.LMSLE cleanup

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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 19:11:42 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] KVM: EFER.LMSLE cleanup

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 09:23:40AM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> AMD defined the 64-bit x86 extensions while Intel was distracted with
> their VLIW science fair project. In this space, Intel produces AMD64
> compatible CPUs.

Almost-compatible. And maybe, just maybe, because Intel were probably
and practically forced to implement AMD64 but then thought, oh well,
we'll do some things differently.

> The definitive specification comes from AMD (which is sad, because
> AMD's documentation is abysmal).

Just don't tell me the SDM is better...

But you and I are really talking past each other: there's nothing
definitive about a spec if, while implementing it, the other vendor is
doing some subtle, but very software visible things differently.

I.e., the theory vs reality point I'm trying to get across.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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