Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] selftests/lam: Move cpu_has_la57() to use cpuinfo flag

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

 



On 2025-01-24 at 08:14:41 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>On 11/27/24 09:35, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>> -/* Check 5-level page table feature in CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=00H):ECX.[bit 16] */
>>  static inline int cpu_has_la57(void)
>>  {
>> -	unsigned int cpuinfo[4];
>> -
>> -	__cpuid_count(0x7, 0, cpuinfo[0], cpuinfo[1], cpuinfo[2], cpuinfo[3]);
>> -
>> -	return (cpuinfo[2] & (1 << 16));
>> +	return !system("grep -wq la57 /proc/cpuinfo");
>>  }
>
>I would rather we find another way.
>
>First, we've documented the behavior a bit in here:
>
>	https://docs.kernel.org/arch/x86/cpuinfo.html
>
>The important part is:
>
>	"The absence of a flag in /proc/cpuinfo by itself means almost
>	nothing to an end user."
>
>Even worse, let's say there's a CPU bug and we say define a bug bit:
>
>	bugs		: spectre_v1 spectre_v2 ... la57_is_broken
>
>How is that grep going to work out? ;)
>
>Could you poke around and see if there is any existing ABI that we can
>use to query LA57 support? Maybe one of the things KVM exports, or some
>TASK_SIZE_MAX comparisons?

Sure, I'll try to find some other way.

My previous tactic was to munmap() a high address and see if it works. Does that
sound okay in case there isn't anything else would indicate la57 to userspace
reliably?

>

-- 
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux