From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754920Ab0JCULp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:11:45 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:44345 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754273Ab0JCULo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:11:44 -0400
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 22:11:39 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, cpu: X86_FEATURE_NOPL should be disabled on
 32-bit only
Message-ID: <20101003201139.GA16532@liondog.tnic>
Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20101003093701.GB3733@liondog.tnic>
 <4CA89681.8000202@zytor.com>
 <20101003152212.GA13233@liondog.tnic>
 <a3fce0e5-e6c5-4bf0-b8c0-4954825a7065@email.android.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a3fce0e5-e6c5-4bf0-b8c0-4954825a7065@email.android.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 11:19:18AM -0700

> I think we actually need to set it on 64 bits.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it is already "indirectly" set
on 64-bits through REQUIRED_MASK3:

#define REQUIRED_MASK3  (NEED_NOPL)

which is defined as

#define NEED_NOPL      (1<<(X86_FEATURE_NOPL & 31))

when either CONFIG_X86_P6_NOP or CONFIG_X86_64 are selected.

and cpu_has() does

#define cpu_has(c, bit)                                                 \
        (__builtin_constant_p(bit) &&                                   \
	...
           (((bit)>>5)==3 && (1UL<<((bit)&31) & REQUIRED_MASK3)) ||     \
	...
	? 1 : test_cpu_cap(c, bit))

which returns 1 when testing for X86_FEATURE_NOPL, no?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.