Re: [PATCH] x86: static_cpu_has_safe: discard dynamic check after init

[H. Peter Anvin]

On January 20, 2016 3:05:19 AM PST, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 02:55:24AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> How about:
>> 
>> section for code used exclusively before alternatives are run.  All
>references to such code must be patched out by alternatives, normally
>by using a patch with X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS.
>> 
>> See static_cpu_has() for an example.
>
>Sure.
>
>My thinking was to make it a bit more generic so that if we decide to
>do
>some different monkey business with the alternatives, to put stuff in
>there too.
>
>But we can always change that later - it's not like it is user-visible.

I don't think the verbiage I suggested in any way disagrees with that notion.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.