linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/17] hwmon: Fix Intel Family-model checks to include extended Families

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: <882357df-7600-4aee-9fb1-4a118872f1af@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 13:38:55 -0800
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...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>, 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 07/17] hwmon: Fix Intel Family-model checks to include
 extended Families

On 2/11/2025 12:58 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/11/25 11:43, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Return without adjustment if the Family isn't 6.
>> +	 * The rest of the function assumes Family 6.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (c->x86 != 6)
>> +		return tjmax;
> 
> Shouldn't we be converting this over to the vfm matches?
> 

For drivers/, I mainly focused on fixes instead of cleanups.

Converting drivers over to VFM checks is significant work. There are a
lot of such comparisons and switch cases (probably more than 50) across
drivers/cpufreq/ and drivers/hwmon/.

Some of the functions might need significant refactoring and rewrites. I
think someone with expertise in that particular driver should probably
do it. I did start with it initially but it is beyond my bandwidth at
the moment.

> This is kinda icky:
> 
>> +	return family > 15 ||
>> +	       (family == 6 &&
>> +		model > 0xe &&
>> +		model != 0x1c &&
>> +		model != 0x26 &&
>> +		model != 0x27 &&
>> +		model != 0x35 &&
>> +		model != 0x36);
>>  }
> 
> I'm not sure how this escaped so far. Probably because it's not in arch/x86.
>