linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 07/16] x86/mtrr: split generic_set

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, 26 Oct 2022 13:43:52 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/16] x86/mtrr: split generic_set_all()

On 26.10.22 12:37, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 10:10:14AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Split generic_set_all() into multiple parts, while moving the main
>> function body into cacheinfo.c.
>>
>> Prepare the support of PAT without needing MTRR support by
>> moving the main function body of generic_set_all() into cacheinfo.c
>> while renaming it to cache_cpu_init(). The MTRR specific parts are
>> moved into a dedicated small function called by cache_cpu_init() in
>> order to make cache_cpu_init() as MTRR agnostic as possible.
>>
>> The setting of smp_changes_mask is merged into the (new) function
>> mtrr_generic_set_state() used to call set_mtrr_state(). It was
>> probably split in ancient times, as atomic operations while running
>> uncached might be quite expensive, but OTOH only systems with a
>> broken BIOS should ever require to set any bit in smp_changes_mask,
>> so just hurting those devices with a penalty of a few microseconds
>> during boot shouldn't be a real issue.
> 
> This still needs addressing
> 
> "So the commit message should not say what you're doing - that should
> be visible from the diff itself. It should talk more about the *why*
> you're doing it."
> 

The reason is "Prepare the support of PAT without needing MTRR support".

DYM I should just remove the rest of the commit message?


Juergen

Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3099 bytes)

Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)