linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/cpu: Expose only stepping min/max interface

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: <d42655ed-d1a4-48e7-ab37-e3449801107d@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 08:27:44 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
 kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
 tony.luck@...el.com, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/cpu: Expose only stepping min/max interface

On 12/13/24 08:24, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> drivers/edac/i10nm_base.c:951:90: error: macro "X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
>   951 |         X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_DARKMONT_X,  X86_STEPPINGS(0x0, 0xf), &gnr_cfg),
>       |                                                                                          ^

I'll fix that up.

>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT_X,	0x0, 0xf, &gnr_cfg),
>> +	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT,	0x0, 0xf, &gnr_cfg),
> 
> Aren't those supposed to be:
> 
> 	X86_MATCH_VFM_STEPPINGS(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT,	X86_STEPPING_MIN, X86_STEPPING_MAX, &gnr_cfg),
> 
> And while we're adding new defines, can we shorten them too?
> 
> 	X86_MATCH_VFM_STP(INTEL_ATOM_CRESTMONT,	X86_STP_MIN, X86_STP_MAX, &gnr_cfg),
> 
> all that "STEPPING" is screaming at me! :-P

I was trying to minimize the churn but that seems like a good thing to
add.  I'll also shorten the name.