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: <3d65c4cc-c002-9e6a-c6ea-fd776968a178@intel.com>
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?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ