Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:42:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:42:09 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:20746 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:42:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:42:06 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: andrea@suse.de, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jh@suse.cz Subject: Re: SSE related security hole Message-ID: <20020419234206.A15187@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20020419230454.C1291@dualathlon.random> <2459.131.107.184.74.1019252157.squirrel@www.zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 02:35:57PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> > >> Ummm...last I knew, fxrstor is *expensive*. The fninit/xor regs setup > >> is likely *very* much faster. Someone should check this before we > >> sacrifice 100 cycles needlessly or something. > > > > most probably yes, fxrestor needs to read ram, pxor also takes some > > icache and bytecode ram but it sounds like it will be faster. > > > > Maybe we could also interleave the pxor with the xorps, since they uses > > different parts of the cpu, Honza? > > > > You almost certainly should. The reason I suggested FXRSTOR is that it > would initialize the entire FPU, including any state that future > processors may add, thus reducing the likelihood of any funnies in the > future. That's also why I like it. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/