linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] add support for CommonLPIAff field

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: <3b6997c9-761f-3f5e-79ac-6b785a9a14d9@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:55:43 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] add support for CommonLPIAff field

On 12/03/18 06:49, Yang Yingliang wrote:
> This patch set adjust struct rdists to support CommonLPIAff field.
> This field is described in spec:
> 
> CommonLPIAff, bits [25:24]
> The affinity level at which Redistributors share a LPI Configuration table.
> 00 All Redistributors must share a LPI Configuration table.
> 01 All Redistributors with the same Aff3 value must share an LPI Configurationt table.
> 10 All Redistributors
> 11 All Redistributors with the same Aff3.Aff2.Aff1 value must share an LPI Configuration
> table.

What are you trying to achieve here? We already share the same
configuration table across all the redistributors, irrelevant the of
CommonLPIAff. Why would we need to do anything else?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...