linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] powerpc/smp: Move shared

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: <877cnh60ap.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 21:44:14 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rohan McLure <rmclure@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>,
        VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] powerpc/smp: Move shared_processor static key to
 smp.h

Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> * Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> [2023-10-19 15:41:40]:
>
>> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> > The ability to detect if the system is running in a shared processor
>> > mode is helpful in few more generic cases not just in
>> > paravirtualization.
>> > For example: At boot time, different scheduler/ topology flags may be
>> > set based on the processor mode. Hence move it to a more generic file.
>> 
>> I'd rather you just included paravirt.h in the few files where you need it.
>
> I thought, detecting if a Processor was shared or not was more a
> smp/processor related than a paravirt related.

It's both really :)

It's definitely paravirt related though, because if we weren't
*para*virt then we wouldn't know there was a hypervisor at all :)

But having smaller more focused headers is preferable in general just
for mechanical reasons.

cheers