From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Udo van den Heuvel <udovdh@xs4all.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>,
folkert van Heusden <folkert@vanheusden.com>
Subject: Re: enable dual rng on VIA C7
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:50:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071127185053.GA30057@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <474C40FA.1070501@xs4all.nl>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> >
> > > I did not know we are already that far ;-)
> > > I mean: can this patch be aplied without hurting C3/C7 CPU's with just
> > > one RNG? Maybe an expert needs to test/answer?
> > > Maybe some logic needs to be applied around the extra bit?
> >
> >>From the padlock spec..
> >
> > "SRC Bits[9:8] Noise source select (I): These bits control the two noise
> > sources on the processor that input bits to the accumulation buffers.
> > On Nehemiah processors prior to stepping 8, these bits are reserved
> > and undefined. The default RESET state is both bits = 0."
> >
> > Something like this perhaps ?
>
> Yes, I think that's a big step in the right direction!
>
> But I am no expert and cannot really judge how necessary or correct the
> implementation is w.r.t. the 'undefined' function bits for CPU's that
> lack a certain feature.
The checks at the end of the patch for the x86_mask/model ensure
we only enable the 2nd noise source on CPUs documented to have it,
so we should be safe.
Andrew, want to throw that in the -mm pile for a while?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-27 18:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-11 18:49 enable dual rng on VIA C7 Udo van den Heuvel
2007-11-26 7:39 ` Andrew Morton
2007-11-26 17:02 ` Udo van den Heuvel
2007-11-26 18:58 ` Dave Jones
2007-11-27 16:08 ` Udo van den Heuvel
2007-11-27 18:50 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2007-11-27 19:01 ` Udo van den Heuvel
2007-11-27 20:51 ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-01 16:51 ` Udo van den Heuvel
2008-01-25 19:03 ` Udo van den Heuvel
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=20071127185053.GA30057@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=folkert@vanheusden.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=udovdh@xs4all.nl \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox