On 02/26/2014 05:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:12:59PM +0700, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
>> @@ -226,6 +234,15 @@ static void intel_workarounds(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SEP);
>>
>> /*
>> + * PAE CPUID bug: Pentium M reports no PAE but has PAE
>> + */
>> + if (forcepae) {
>> + printk(KERN_WARNING "PAE forced!\n");
>> + set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_PAE);
>> + add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK, LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE);
>
> This is certainly the wrong taint flag. We'd need a new one or to
> repurpose another one as I suggested in a previous mail.
>
I liked your proposal:
> Right, I was about to say that. And since there's no special bit for
> running "out-of-spec", we could probably repurpose
>
> TAINT_UNSAFE_SMP - 'S' - SMP with CPUs not designed for SMP.
>
> to
>
> TAINT_UNSAFE_OUT_OF_SPEC (the letter S fits still) and add that taint
> everytime we're enforcing functionality against doctor's orders, so to
> speak.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
