linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86/cpu: Make all all CPUID leaf names consistent

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: <9624a1ba-bc0a-4aef-93e7-7faad87aca03@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:25:41 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 tglx@...utronix.de, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86/cpu: Make all all CPUID leaf names consistent

On 12/9/24 08:27, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> As for "cap_nr", IMO that is a net negative relative to "leaf".  For all CPUID
> leaves that KVM cares about, the array entry is guaranteed to correspond to a
> single CPUID leaf, albeit for only one output register.  KVM has definitely
> bastardized "leaf", but I do think it helps convey that the "word" being modified
> corresponds 1:1 with a specific CPUID leaf output.

I'm having a little trouble parsing this.

I think you're saying that, right now, if KVM cares about a CPUID leaf
that it only cares about a single _word_, even if the core x86 code
cares about multiple words. So the concept of a word is actually mostly
changeable with a leaf ... for now.

Is that right?