linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/cpu: Break Vendor/Family/Model macros into separate header

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: <bc44ea2d-c0d1-445e-aa5d-8fa939b36444@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 13:54:27 -0800
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "Liu, Zhao1"
	<zhao1.liu@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin"
	<hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "Kohler, Jon"
	<jon@...anix.com>, Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, "Peter
 Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "Winiarska, Iwona"
	<iwona.winiarska@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/cpu: Break Vendor/Family/Model macros into
 separate header

On 2/11/2026 1:12 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> So PECI and x86 both want the same data, but they do very different
> things with it.
> 
> So let's just duplicate the constants. Completely untested patch attached.
> 

This looks okay in principle. I haven't tested it yet. But, there seems
to be an inconsistency here?

>  static int peci_device_info_init(struct peci_device *device)
>  {
>  	u8 revision;
> @@ -100,7 +80,7 @@ static int peci_device_info_init(struct
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	device->info.x86_vfm = IFM(peci_x86_cpu_family(cpu_id), peci_x86_cpu_model(cpu_id));
> +	device->info.device_id = cpu_id >> 4;
>  

I imagine this shifting the stepping. Should this be cpu_id & 0xF?

Because the devices are stored with the stepping info:

> +#define PECI_INTEL_HASWELL_X		0x306C0
> +#define PECI_INTEL_BROADWELL_X		0x406F0
> +#define PECI_INTEL_BROADWELL_D		0x50660
> +#define PECI_INTEL_SKYLAKE_X		0x50650
> +
> +#define PECI_INTEL_ICELAKE_X		0x606A0
> +#define PECI_INTEL_ICELAKE_D		0x606C0
> +#define PECI_INTEL_SAPPHIRERAPIDS_X	0x806F0
> +#define PECI_INTEL_EMERALDRAPIDS_X	0xC06F0
>  

Or maybe define the CPUs without the stepping bits?


>  	ret = peci_get_revision(device, &revision);
>  	if (ret)