linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Use alternative_input() in amd_clear

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: <20250315213655.GFZ9Xy986YQZCeK4iX@fat_crate.local>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 22:36:55 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Use alternative_input() in amd_clear_divider()

On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 10:29:25PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So why does the higher level alternative_input() API exist? If it 
> shouldn't exist then we should remove it. If it exists, we should use 
> it consistently instead of open-coding its equivalent.
> 
> Cleanups like this, especially if they are clearly part of an effort to 
> improve x86 code generation in this area, are not 'code churn', why 
> would they be?

Because this is not improving anything, IMO. It is simply writing it
differently, perhaps obscuring it more in the process.

And I, just like hpa, would need to go look at alternative_input() to figure
out what really happens there.

Dunno, maybe we should really remove alternative_input() instead...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette