linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v10 03/38] x86/msr: Add the WRMSRNS instruction support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <SA1PR11MB6734FA69601B69FBC92361D8A8FFA@SA1PR11MB6734.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2023 23:21:50 +0000
From:   "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
CC:     "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Gross, Jurgen" <jgross@...e.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "mhiramat@...nel.org" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 03/38] x86/msr: Add the WRMSRNS instruction support

> > I notice there are several call sites using the safe version w/o
> > checking the return value, should the unsafe version be a better
> > choice in such cases?
> 
> Depends. The safe version does not emit a warning on fail. So if the
> callsite truly does not care about the error it's fine.

Right. So the _safe suffix also means to suppress a warning that the
caller doesn't care.

Thanks!
    Xin