From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add missing verify_cpu to 32bit wakeup
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:07:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E0E532C.2060807@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110701223623.GV32221@outflux.net>
On 07/01/2011 03:36 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> For S3, we should save/restore MISC_ENABLE instead... in fact, we
>> already save it, we just restore it too late.
>
> Given that MISC_ENABLE may not be available for a given CPU, it seems that
> it's basically the same detection code as in verify_cpu() already. Since
> this bit is the only part that is needed that early, I think the patch is
> good the way it is (especially since it balances the 64bit path which
> already calls this logic). I don't think doing the full early MISC_ENABLE
> save/restore this early is worth it. Thoughts?
>
We already save it, including if it exists, so we should just restore it
early, and then we don't have to do it again.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-01 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-01 21:19 [PATCH] x86: add missing verify_cpu to 32bit wakeup Kees Cook
2011-07-01 21:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-01 22:36 ` Kees Cook
2011-07-01 23:07 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2011-07-03 12:15 ` Pavel Machek
2011-07-03 19:15 ` Kees Cook
2011-07-03 21:25 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-07-03 21:34 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E0E532C.2060807@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=kees.cook@canonical.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.