linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 29/71] x86/cpu/intel: Switch to new Intel CPU model defines

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: <SJ1PR11MB6083654145DEDC921F7E39BAFC172@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:29:37 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Luis Chamberlain
	<mcgrof@...nel.org>, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Raj, Ashok"
	<ashok.raj@...el.com>, "Si, Bingsong" <sibs@...natelecom.cn>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 29/71] x86/cpu/intel: Switch to new Intel CPU model
 defines

> > +static bool vfm_match(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, u32 vfm)
> > +{
> > +   return c->x86_vendor == VFM_VENDOR(vfm) &&
> > +          c->x86 == VFM_FAMILY(vfm) &&
> > +          c->x86_model == VFM_MODEL(vfm);
> > +}
>
> Why is that one here?
>
> It looks generic enough to put it in asm/processor.h so that it can get
> used elsewhere too instead of homegrowing things again...

Looking at it now in the context of where this patch series ended, it looks
to be superfluous. It just reduces to:

static bool vfm_match(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, u32 vfm)
{
	return c->x86_vfm == vfm;
}

But since it is only used in one place, I should just do that test inline without
a helper:

	if (c->x86_vfm == spectre_bad_microcodes[i].vfm &&
	    c->x86_stepping == spectre_bad_microcodes[i].stepping)
		return (c->microcode <= spectre_bad_microcodes[i].microcode);

-Tony