On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:02:39PM +0100, Udo van den Heuvel wrote:
> >
> > > I did not know we are already that far ;-)
> > > I mean: can this patch be aplied without hurting C3/C7 CPU's with just
> > > one RNG? Maybe an expert needs to test/answer?
> > > Maybe some logic needs to be applied around the extra bit?
> >
> >>From the padlock spec..
> >
> > "SRC Bits[9:8] Noise source select (I): These bits control the two noise
> > sources on the processor that input bits to the accumulation buffers.
> > On Nehemiah processors prior to stepping 8, these bits are reserved
> > and undefined. The default RESET state is both bits = 0."
> >
> > Something like this perhaps ?
>
> Yes, I think that's a big step in the right direction!
>
> But I am no expert and cannot really judge how necessary or correct the
> implementation is w.r.t. the 'undefined' function bits for CPU's that
> lack a certain feature.
The checks at the end of the patch for the x86_mask/model ensure
we only enable the 2nd noise source on CPUs documented to have it,
so we should be safe.
Andrew, want to throw that in the -mm pile for a while?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
