linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: cpuinfo: Expose MIDR_EL1 and REVIDR

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160628141755.GE4585@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:17:55 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, mark.rutland@....com,
	steve.capper@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: cpuinfo: Expose MIDR_EL1 and REVIDR_EL1 to
 sysfs

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:06:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > +static struct attribute_group cpuregs_attr_group = {
> > +	.attrs = cpuregs_attrs,
> > +	.name = "identification"
> > +};
> 
> This makes sense because MIDR/REVIDR belong to the "Identification"
> functional group of registers, however I wonder if we should put this
> under a directory called "regs" or similar, so that we don't have a
> confusing top-level directory where "identification" lives alongside
> things like "hotplug" and "cpuidle".

IMO, there are too many subdirectories and I don't think we would expose
any other registers than the ID ones.

-- 
Catalin