linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] docs/arm64: cpu-feature-registers: Documents missing visible fields

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]

Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:48:18 +0000
From:   Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>
To:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        "julien@....org" <julien@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] docs/arm64: cpu-feature-registers: Documents missing
 visible fields

Hi,

On 03/10/2019 12:12, Julien Grall wrote:
> A couple of fields visible to userspace are not described in the
> documentation. So update it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>
> ---
>   Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.rst | 4 ++++
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.rst b/Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.rst
> index 2955287e9acc..ffcf4e2c71ef 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.rst
> @@ -193,6 +193,10 @@ infrastructure:
>        +------------------------------+---------+---------+
>        | Name                         |  bits   | visible |
>        +------------------------------+---------+---------+
> +     | SB                           | [36-39] |    y    |
> +     +------------------------------+---------+---------+
> +     | FRINTTS                      | [32-35] |    y    |
> +     +------------------------------+---------+---------+

Will reported the bitfields were inconsistent (see [1]). Looking in more 
details, it seems that I messed up this patch when sending it (I honestly can't 
remember why I wrote like that :().

@Catalin, I saw you applied this patch to for-next/elf-hwcap-docs. Would you
mind to update the content of the patch? Or do you prefer a new version?

>        | GPI                          | [31-28] |    y    |
>        +------------------------------+---------+---------+
>        | GPA                          | [27-24] |    y    |
> 

Cheers,

[1] <20191029111517.GE11590@...lie-the-truck>

-- 
Julien Grall