linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Add hardcoded crystal clock for KabyLake

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:   Thu, 20 Oct 2022 10:18:47 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rishabh Agrawal <rishabhagr@...omium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, len.brown@...el.com,
        drake@...lessm.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, vaibhav.shankar@...el.com,
        biernacki@...gle.com, zwisler@...gle.com, mattedavis@...gle.com,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add hardcoded crystal clock for KabyLake

On 10/20/22 10:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> And why, pray *WHY* can't Intel simply write the correct information in
> CPUID leaf 15h. I mean, they defined the leaf, might as well use it, no?

Is the data that's in the leaf just wrong?  Doesn't that mean that the
CPUID leaf on these models is violating the architecture contract?  That
sounds like something that deserves an erratum.

Is there a documented erratum?