linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/74] x86/cpu/vfm: Add/initialize x86_vfm field to struct cpuinfo

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