linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] x86/cpufeature: Warn about unmet feature dependencies

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2e9900e5-e25a-4e53-acb2-d71247cd497e@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:35:25 -0700
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Thomas
 Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Uros
 Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>, Sean
 Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, Nikolay Borisov
	<nik.borisov@...e.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>, Xin Li
	<xin3.li@...el.com>, "Alexander Shishkin" <alexander.shishkin@...el.com>,
	Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] x86/cpufeature: Warn about unmet feature dependencies

On 3/13/2025 3:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>>> I'd make this a bit less passive-aggressive, something like:
>>>
>>>      x86 CPU feature dependency check failure: CPU%d has '%s' enabled but '%s' disabled. Kernel might be fine, but no guarantees.
>>>
> 

...

> Yeah, so I really wanted to sneak in the 'dependency' part - because 
> it's not necessarily obvious from the text, and most syslog readers 
> will have no idea what it's all about.
> 
> I don't think line length should be an issue for a message we don't 
> expect to trigger normally. Clarity is more important.
> 

Sounds good, I'll use the one you proposed as-is. Will send a new
(hopefully final) revision soon with the changes.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo