linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/microcode: Add microcode loader debugging functionality

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: <20250812102645.GBaJsW5cJLYc90Fhhg@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:26:45 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/microcode: Add microcode loader debugging
 functionality

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 08:04:58PM -0700, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> Since this is all new code, would it be better to use the expanded form
> of dbg everywhere?
> 
> s/dbg/debug/
> s/MICROCODE_DBG/MICROCODE_DEBUG
> s/ucode_dbg/ucode_debug

No, because I don't want to type unnecessarily and "dbg" is very clear as it
is.

> Also, I didn't understand the "Format: <bool>".

I think force_minrev was supposed to take a bool but then we changed it. And
that remained here. Whacked.

> Isn't default n redundant? I am fine with keeping it to make it obvious.

Yes, we're making it obvious.

> Should we also include a dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL?

Because?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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