linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v1 06/11] x86/fpu/mpx: Remove MPX xstate component support

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: <Z8C5B9PJUqkEDGH9@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:12:07 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 06/11] x86/fpu/mpx: Remove MPX xstate component
 support


* Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:

> A new xstate component is set to occupy the position previously used by
> MPX in the non-compacted format, then creating a fundamental conflict
> between the two.
> 
> Currently, xfeature_noncompact_order[] includes MPX, but the introduction
> of the new feature would cause a direct conflict there unless MPX is
> removed. Fortunately, MPX support has already been deprecated and
> effectively removed by commit:
> 
>     45fc24e89b7c ("x86/mpx: remove MPX from arch/x86")
> 
> Explicitly disable the deprecated feature to reserve a space for the new
> xstate.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
> ---
> Several code references to this feature macro remain, primarily on the
> KVM side. While they are likely to become obsolete after this patch,
> their cleanup has been deferred at this review stage: This can be
> addressed in a follow-up patch or included as an optional part of APX
> enablement, I suppose.

So can this patch be moved further up in the series (without breaking 
anything), to make it easier to review the impact of the APX changes?

Thanks,

	Ingo