linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] x86/pat: Replace Intel x86

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: <24acb878-2b5c-486d-ad8c-72a46b8463e7@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:09:29 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
 Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
 Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
 Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
 David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] x86/pat: Replace Intel x86_model checks with VFM
 ones

On 2/11/25 11:44, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> +	if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
> +	    ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_PENTIUM_PRO && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_PENTIUM_M_DOTHAN) ||
> +	    (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE && c->x86_vfm <= INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL))) {

Since these are both closed checks and not open-ended, is the

	if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&

bit needed or superfluous?

Also, super nit, can you vertically align the two range checks, please?

	    ((c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_PENTIUM_PRO   && c->x86_vfm <=
INTEL_PENTIUM_M_DOTHAN) ||
	     (c->x86_vfm >= INTEL_P4_WILLAMETTE && c->x86_vfm <=
INTEL_P4_CEDARMILL))) {