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: <20240328170608.GFZgWjgGSqFL7kGQkE@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:06:08 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/74] x86/cpu/vfm: Add/initialize x86_vfm field to
 struct cpuinfo_x86

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 04:56:37PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> I could make the raw format of the #define values be CPUID(1).EAX
> with the stepping masked out. But then I'd need to add a new field to
> the structure instead of overlaying with the vendor/family/model
> fields.

Yes, that would be better. And if you're going to replace our f/m/s
checking with something better, then it better handle the stepping just
like the rest. How it is used now doesn't mean a whole lot for the
future.

And if it is not too important for most checks, you can mask it out with
macros.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ