linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Start documenting what the X86_FEATURE

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: <Y2okdzF60XHLCK2v@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 10:42:15 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu: Start documenting what the X86_FEATURE_ flag
 testing macros do

On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 02:13:52PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> It seems to be mildly warning against using _static_cpu_has()
> indiscriminately.  Should we tone that down a bit if we're recommending
> implicit use of static_cpu_has() via cpu_feature_enabled() everywhere?

Yeah, that comment is mine AFAIR. I was thinking of simply removing
it as part of a long-term effort of converting everything to
cpu_feature_enabled() and hiding static_cpu_has() eventually...

> I was also thinking that some longer-form stuff in Documentation/ might
> be a good idea, along with some examples.  I'd be happy to follow this
> up with another patch that added Documentation/ like:

The problem with this is, it'll go out of sync with the code. So how
about we make this a kernel-doc thing so that it gets updated in
parallel?

Also look at Documentation/x86/cpuinfo.rst

It basically has most of what you wanna add.

:-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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