linux-kernel - [PATCH] x86/cpufeature: Document cpu_feature

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: <20241031103401.GBZyNdGQ-ZyXKyzC_z@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:34:01 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Cc: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"avadhut.naik@....com" <avadhut.naik@....com>,
	"john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
	"mario.limonciello@....com" <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com" <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
	"richard.gong@....com" <richard.gong@....com>,
	"jdelvare@...e.com" <jdelvare@...e.com>,
	"linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"clemens@...isch.de" <clemens@...isch.de>,
	"hdegoede@...hat.com" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	"ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com" <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	"naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com" <naveenkrishna.chatradhi@....com>,
	"carlos.bilbao.osdev@...il.com" <carlos.bilbao.osdev@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH] x86/cpufeature: Document cpu_feature_enabled() as the
 default to use

From: "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@...en8.de>

cpu_feature_enabled() should be used in most cases when CPU feature
support needs to be tested in code. Document that.

Reported-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@...en8.de>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 18 ++++++------------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
index 0b9611da6c53..de1ad09fe8d7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
@@ -132,11 +132,12 @@ extern const char * const x86_bug_flags[NBUGINTS*32];
 	 x86_this_cpu_test_bit(bit, cpu_info.x86_capability))
 
 /*
- * This macro is for detection of features which need kernel
- * infrastructure to be used.  It may *not* directly test the CPU
- * itself.  Use the cpu_has() family if you want true runtime
- * testing of CPU features, like in hypervisor code where you are
- * supporting a possible guest feature where host support for it
+ * This is the default CPU features testing macro to use in code.
+ *
+ * It is for detection of features which need kernel infrastructure to be
+ * used.  It may *not* directly test the CPU itself.  Use the cpu_has() family
+ * if you want true runtime testing of CPU features, like in hypervisor code
+ * where you are supporting a possible guest feature where host support for it
  * is not relevant.
  */
 #define cpu_feature_enabled(bit)	\
@@ -161,13 +162,6 @@ extern void clear_cpu_cap(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, unsigned int bit);
 #define setup_force_cpu_bug(bit) setup_force_cpu_cap(bit)
 
 /*
- * Static testing of CPU features. Used the same as boot_cpu_has(). It
- * statically patches the target code for additional performance. Use
- * static_cpu_has() only in fast paths, where every cycle counts. Which
- * means that the boot_cpu_has() variant is already fast enough for the
- * majority of cases and you should stick to using it as it is generally
- * only two instructions: a RIP-relative MOV and a TEST.
- *
  * Do not use an "m" constraint for [cap_byte] here: gcc doesn't know
  * that this is only used on a fallback path and will sometimes cause
  * it to manifest the address of boot_cpu_data in a register, fouling
-- 
2.43.0

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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