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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241210112807.GFZ1glxwOx7Nlm_edI@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 12:28:07 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	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 Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 08:27:58AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > And having a "CPUID_" prefixed thing and a "CPUID_LEAF_" prefixed other thing
> > > is going to cause confusion.
> 
> +1.
> 
> What about CPUID_FN_xxx for thing architectural leaf function number?  E.g.
> CPUID_FN_80000007 or maybe even CPUID_FN_0x80000007.  CPUID_LEAF_xxx is arguably
> wrong anyways for entries with sub-leaves.

Makes sense to me.

Especially if the name already has the function number in it too, which is
self-documenting.

Vs.

CPUID_FN_XSTATE

which will make me go lookup what that "XSTATE" function number was...

In any case, I think having a clear distinction in the naming between

* arch/hw names: CPUID_FN

* our own: CPUID_LNX_...

should help.

And once we're clear on the nomenclature, the conversion will happen
"automatically". :)

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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