linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/zhaoxin: Add stepping check for ZX-C

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: <Y+DM8BZUi6a10hXY@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 10:48:32 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     silviazhaooc <silviazhao-oc@...oxin.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        cobechen@...oxin.com, louisqi@...oxin.com, silviazhao@...oxin.com,
        tonywwang@...oxin.com, kevinbrace@....com,
        8vvbbqzo567a@...pam.xutrox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/zhaoxin: Add stepping check for ZX-C

On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 04:26:25PM +0800, silviazhaooc wrote:
> Due to our company’s email policy, email address with oc suffix is used for
> sending email without confidentiality statement at the end of the mail body.
> 
> I will remove –oc from my name later.

Yes, please. The email address is fine but the name doesn't have to have
that funky "-oc" thing.

> But due to some unknown historical reasons, the FMS of Nano and ZXC are only
> different in stepping.
> 
> I have considered about using the “Model name string” to distinguish them,
> but it doesn't seem to be a common way in Linux kernel.

I don't mind you using steppings to differentiate the two as long as
this is not going to change all of a sudden and that differentiation is
unambiguous.

If not, you will have to use name strings as you don't have any other
choice.

Whatever you do, pls define a new X86_BUG_ flag, set it only on Nano and
then test it in the PMU init code.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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