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: <1d808c21-f54d-1506-d95a-0276430aea8d@zhaoxin.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2023 18:55:21 +0800
From:   silviazhaooc <silviazhao-oc@...oxin.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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

Hi Boris,

Thanks for your reply.

As I mentioned before, Nano has several series. We cannot test if all of 
them have the bug. Besides, AFAIK Nano's hardware support for PMC has 
not externally announced. So setting a new X86_BUG_ flag to Nano is 
inappropriate.

I still think exclude PMC support in driver is more appropriate.

Looking forward to your comments.


On 2023/2/6 17:48, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
>