On 19.01.21 13:06, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:35:42PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
In fact this should rather be named "X86_FEATURE_TRUE", as this is its
semantics.
And I think I can define it to the value 0x instead of using a
"real" bit for it.
A real bit is cheap -
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:35:42PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> In fact this should rather be named "X86_FEATURE_TRUE", as this is its
> semantics.
>
> And I think I can define it to the value 0x instead of using a
> "real" bit for it.
A real bit is cheap - a special value to pay attention to i
On 07.01.21 20:08, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:31:25AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
Instead of only supporting to modify instructions when a specific
feature is set, support doing so for the case a feature is not set.
As today a feature is specified using a 16 bit quantity
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:31:25AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Instead of only supporting to modify instructions when a specific
> feature is set, support doing so for the case a feature is not set.
>
> As today a feature is specified using a 16 bit quantity and the highest
> feature number in u
Instead of only supporting to modify instructions when a specific
feature is set, support doing so for the case a feature is not set.
As today a feature is specified using a 16 bit quantity and the highest
feature number in use is around 600, using a negated feature number for
specifying the inver
