Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:02:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Should we maybe rename these functions?  static_cpu_has() is at least
> reasonably obvious.  But cpu_feature_enabled() is different for
> reasons I've never understood, and boot_cpu_has() is IMO terribly
> named.  It's not about the boot cpu -- it's about doing the same thing
> but with less bloat and less performance.

Well, it does test bits in boot_cpu_data. I don't care about "boot" in
the name though so feel free to suggest something better.

> (And can we maybe collapse cpu_feature_enabled() and static_cpu_has()
> into the same function?)

I'm not sure it would be always ok to involve the DISABLED_MASK*
buildtime stuff in the checks. It probably is but it would need careful
auditing to be sure, first.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.