linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 00/40] x86: Leaf 0x2 and leaf 0x4 refactorings

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: <Z8bFnGSxmNSFQDSQ@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 10:19:24 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	x86-cpuid@...ts.linux.dev, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/40] x86: Leaf 0x2 and leaf 0x4 refactorings

* Ahmed S. Darwish <darwi@...utronix.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As part of the onging x86-cpuid work [*], we've found that the handling
> of leaf 0x2 and leaf 0x4 code paths is difficult to work with in its
> current state.  This was mostly due to the organic growth of the x86/cpu
> and x86/cacheinfo logic since its very early Linux days.
> 
> This series cleans up and refactors these code paths in preparation for
> the new x86-cpuid model.

Nice!

> Summary:
> 
> - Patches 1 to 3 are independent bugfixes that were discovered during
>   this refactoring work.

I've applied these three to tip:x86/urgent. I added Cc: stable to all 3 
commits, because while these are old bugs, the first one had Cc: stable 
and if we do it for one it's justified for all of them AFAICS. Arguably 
our cacheinfo output in procps was inaccurate at times, and possibly 
these bugs were part of the problem.

> - Patches 4 to 10 are x86/cpu refactorings for code size and
>   readability.

I've applied patches 4 to 9 to tip:x86/cpu (with x86/urgent merged in 
due to dependencies and to give a singular topical base branch in the 
x86 tree), they look good and obvious. (I added the build fix to 05/40)

I've left 10 to 40 for further review by others too.

Thanks,

	Ingo