linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/acpi/boot: Correct acpi_is_processor

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: <20251112191740.GGaRTdVGCKm06z0EnZ@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 20:17:40 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Michal Pecio <michal.pecio@...il.com>
Cc: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/acpi/boot: Correct acpi_is_processor_usable() check
 again

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 07:05:18PM +0100, Michal Pecio wrote:
> Nitpick: IMO logic would be easier to follow if written this way:
> 
> 	if (lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED)
> 		return true;
> 
> 	if (acpi_support_online_capable)
> 		return lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE;
> 
> 	/* we should say 'no' at this point, but VMs are crazy */
> 	return !hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NATIVE);

Sure, except I'd like to keep the original comment as that leaves more
breadcrumbs about why we're doing this insanity.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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