On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51:25AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> with the slight caveat that I think it might be a wee bit better if >> UMIP emulation used a separate define UMIP_REPORTED_CR0. > > Why, do you see CR0_STATE and UMIP_REPORTED_CR0 becoming different at > some point? I'm assuming that UMIP_REPORTED_CR0 will never change. If CR0 gets a new field that we set some day, then I assume that CR0_STATE would add that bit but UMIP_REPORTED_CR0 would not. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > --
