linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: rename the function arm64_is_ras

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:00:10 +0000
From:   gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        gengdongjiu <gengdj.1984@...il.com>
CC:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        "Marc Zyngier" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "Huangshaoyu (Shawn)" <huangshaoyu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: rename the function arm64_is_ras_serror() to
 avoid confusion

Hi James,

> Hi gengdongjiu,
> 
> On 26/02/18 16:13, gengdongjiu wrote:
> > 2018-02-24 1:58 GMT+08:00 James Morse <james.morse@....com>:
> >> On 22/02/18 18:02, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
> >>> The RAS SError Syndrome can be Implementation-Defined,
> >>> arm64_is_ras_serror() is used to judge whether it is RAS SError, but
> >>> arm64_is_ras_serror() does not include this judgement. In order to
> >>> avoid function name confusion, we rename the arm64_is_ras_serror()
> >>> to arm64_is_categorized_ras_serror(), this function is used to judge
> >>> whether it is categorized RAS Serror.
> >>
> >> I don't see how 'categorized' is relevant. The most significant ISS
> >> bit is used to determine if this is an IMP-DEF ESR, or one that uses the architected layout.
> >
> > From the name arm64_is_ras_serror(), it used to judge whether this is
> > RAS Serror, but arm64_is_ras_serror() think the IMP-DEF SError is not
> > RAS SError, as shown the code note and code in[1].
> 
> > In fact the IMP-DEF SError is also RAS SError, so when I read the
> > code, it looks like
> 
> This is just you then. No-one else has your imp-def:RAS error ESR values.
> 
> This would be like me adding some impdef branch instruction, then claiming
> aarch64_insn_is_branch() doesn't take account of my private additions.
> 
> I agree the name is assuming all architected ESR are RAS-errors, and that impdef ESR are just that: impdef, that's all we know about them.
> Unless this causes us to do the wrong thing, I don't think it matters.
> Obviously we would need to change it if a new architected ESR is added.

Ok, let us keep the current code and not change it until a new architected ESR is added