linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/49] 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: Tue, 21 May 2024 08:48:34 -0700
From: Tony Luck <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,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/49] x86/cpu: Fix x86_match_cpu() to match just
 X86_VENDOR_INTEL

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:49:47AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > Fixes: 644e9cbbe3fc ("Add driver auto probing for x86 features v4")
> 
> Do you really want to backport this to everything since 2012, as that
> patch is from then?

I didn't include a Cc: stable. Is there some better way to report
the source commit for a problem without triggering a backport?

> 
> > @@ -690,6 +690,7 @@ struct x86_cpu_id {
> >  	__u16 model;
> >  	__u16 steppings;
> >  	__u16 feature;	/* bit index */
> > +	__u16 flags;
> >  	kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
> >  };
> >  
> > @@ -700,6 +701,9 @@ struct x86_cpu_id {
> >  #define X86_STEPPING_ANY 0
> >  #define X86_FEATURE_ANY 0	/* Same as FPU, you can't test for that */
> >  
> > +/* x86_cpu_id::flags */
> > +#define X86_CPU_ID_FLAG_ENTRY_VALID	BIT(0)
> 
> I would definitely not want to have those visible in userspace.
> 
> IOW, something like this:

Agreed. Looks better to keep the define out of a <linux/*.h> file.

Do you want me to spin a new patch? Or can you fold your change into
my patch when applying?

-Tony