linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just X86_VENDOR

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]

Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 19:53:24 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
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>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
	"Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just
 X86_VENDOR_INTEL

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 05:43:10PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> What if the bit in flags was named " X86_CPU_ID_FLAG_ENTRY_VALID"
> 
> Then the loop in x86_match_cpu() could just be:
> 
> 	for (m = match; m->flags & X86_CPU_ID_FLAG_ENTRY_VALID; m++) {

Yeah, makes sense at a first glance.

This'll keep the terminators "{}" unchanged so that we don't have to
touch all those gazillion places and it'll explicitly state that an
entry is valid or not.

But the devil's in the detail, as always...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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