lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 11:45:27 +0100 From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com, Vladimir.Murzin@....com, steve.capper@...aro.org, ryan.arnold@...aro.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com, will.deacon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, edward.nevill@...aro.org, aph@...hat.com, james.morse@....com, andre.przywara@....com, dave.martin@....com, christoffer.dall@...aro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/24] arm64: Keep track of CPU feature registers On 15/10/15 11:36, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Hi Suzuki, > > Some minor comments below. >> The feature bits are classified as one of SCALAR_MIN, SCALAR_MAX and DISCRETE >> depending on the implication of the possible values. This information >> is used to decide the safe value for a feature. >> > > The "SCALAR..." etc. in the comment needs updating. Sorry about that. Will fix it. > >> +#define FTR_STRICT true >> +#define FTR_NONSTRICT false > > Please add a comment on what STRICT/NONSTRICT mean. > Sure >> +static inline u64 ftr_mask(struct arm64_ftr_bits *ftrp) >> +{ >> + return (u64)GENMASK(ftrp->shift + ftrp->width - 1, ftrp->shift); >> +} >> + >> +static inline s64 arm64_ftr_value(struct arm64_ftr_bits *ftrp, u64 val) >> +{ >> + return cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(val, ftrp->shift, ftrp->width); >> +} > > Slightly inconsistent naming: since you are prefixing everything with > arm64_, do the same for ftr_mask. OK, will add it. > >> +static struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_regs[] = { >> + >> + /* This array should be always kept in the ascending order of id */ > > Do we have a sanity check somewhere? You could also call sort() on this > array and we wouldn't have to worry. No we don't have a sanity check. I will take a look. > >> +/* >> + * get_arm64_sys_reg - Lookup a feature register entry using its >> + * sys_reg() encoding. With the array arm64_ftr_regs sorted in the >> + * ascending order, we use binary search to find a matching entry. >> + * >> + * returns - Upon success, matching ftr_reg entry for id. >> + * - NULL on failure. It is upto the caller to decide >> + * the impact of a failure. >> + */ >> +static struct arm64_ftr_reg* get_arm64_sys_reg(u32 sys_id) > > Nitpick: the * near the function name. > > Also rename it to get_arm64_ftr_reg() to match the actual return type. > Sure, will fix all of these. Thanks for the detailed look -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists