linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 09/33] x86/cpu: add X86_CR4

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:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:06:16 -0700
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, shan.kang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 09/33] x86/cpu: add X86_CR4_FRED macro

On 6/5/23 05:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10 2023 at 01:14, Xin Li wrote:
> 
>> From: "H. Peter Anvin (Intel)" <hpa@...or.com>
>>
>> Add X86_CR4_FRED macro for the FRED bit in %cr4. This bit should be a
> 
> s/should/must/ no?
> 

Technically no bit "must" be set in the fixed bit variable, but it would 
obviously be insane not to. But it makes it a "should", both in 
dictionary and RFC 2119 definitions.

Incidentally, I strongly advice everyone to use the RFC 2119 definitions 
of technical requirement terms when possible.

	-hpa