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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox