On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:17:10PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 01:01:03PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > I see that cpu_feature_enabled() uses code patching while boot_cpu_has() does > > not. All these checks occur once at module load time, though, so code patching > > wouldn't be beneficial. > > We want to convert all code to use a single interface for testing CPU features > - cpu_feature_enabled() - and the implementation shouldn't be important to > users - it should just work. > > Since you're adding new code, you might as well use the proper interface. As > to converting crypto/ and the rest of the tree, that should happen at some > point... eventually... Well, it's new code in a function that already has a bunch of boot_cpu_has() checks. I don't really like leaving around random inconsistencies. If there is a new way to do it, we should just update it everywhere. I'll also note that boot_cpu_has() is missing a comment that says it is deprecated (if it really is). - Eric
