RE: [PATCH v2] x86/Kconfig: Rename UMIP config parameter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 3:48 PM
> To: Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; hpa@xxxxxxxxx;
> pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx; sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx;
> vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx; wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx; jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx;
> x86@xxxxxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; luto@xxxxxxxxxx; zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; nayna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/Kconfig: Rename UMIP config parameter
> 
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 08:50:51PM +0000, Moger, Babu wrote:
> > AMD 2nd generation EPYC processors support the UMIP (User-Mode
> > Instruction Prevention) feature. So, rename X86_INTEL_UMIP to
> > generic X86_UMIP and modify the text to cover both Intel and AMD.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> >   Learned that for the hardware that support UMIP, we dont need to
> >   emulate. Removed the emulation related code and just submitting
> >   the config changes.
> >
> >  arch/x86/Kconfig                         |    8 ++++----
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/disabled-features.h |    2 +-
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/umip.h              |    4 ++--
> >  arch/x86/kernel/Makefile                 |    2 +-
> >  4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > index d6e1faa28c58..821b7cebff31 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > @@ -1880,13 +1880,13 @@ config X86_SMAP
> >
> >  	  If unsure, say Y.
> >
> > -config X86_INTEL_UMIP
> > +config X86_UMIP
> >  	def_bool y
> > -	depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL
> > -	prompt "Intel User Mode Instruction Prevention" if EXPERT
> > +	depends on X86 && (CPU_SUP_INTEL || CPU_SUP_AMD)
> 		   ^^^
> 
> What's the dependency on X86 for?
> 
> Aren't the CPU_SUP_* things enough?

Yes. It should be good enough. Will update.
> 
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux