Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Mar 2019 21:25:21 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading |
| |
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:02:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > Should we maybe rename these functions? static_cpu_has() is at least > reasonably obvious. But cpu_feature_enabled() is different for > reasons I've never understood, and boot_cpu_has() is IMO terribly > named. It's not about the boot cpu -- it's about doing the same thing > but with less bloat and less performance.
Well, it does test bits in boot_cpu_data. I don't care about "boot" in the name though so feel free to suggest something better.
> (And can we maybe collapse cpu_feature_enabled() and static_cpu_has() > into the same function?)
I'm not sure it would be always ok to involve the DISABLED_MASK* buildtime stuff in the checks. It probably is but it would need careful auditing to be sure, first.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
| |