linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/15] x86/msr: Replace __wrmsr() with native

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: <29ad84a6-b40c-456a-9eed-9887c87dfb38@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 12:56:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
 virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
 linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 llvm@...ts.linux.dev, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, jgross@...e.com,
 andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, peterz@...radead.org, acme@...nel.org,
 namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
 alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
 adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
 ajay.kaher@...adcom.com, alexey.amakhalov@...adcom.com,
 bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
 pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
 luto@...nel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, kys@...rosoft.com,
 haiyangz@...rosoft.com, decui@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/15] x86/msr: Replace __wrmsr() with
 native_wrmsrl()

On 4/9/25 12:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> What would folks think about "wrmsr64()"? It's writing a 64-bit 
>>> value to an MSR and there are a lot of functions in the kernel that 
>>> are named with the argument width in bits.
>> Personally, I hate the extra verbosity, mostly visual, since numerals 
>> are nearly as prominent as capital letters they tend to attract the 
>> eye. There is a reason why they aren't used this way in assembly 
>> languages.
> So what's the consensus here? Both work for me, but I have to pick one. 🙂

I don't feel strongly about it. You're not going to hurt my feelings if
you pick the "q" one, so go for "q" unless you have a real preference.