linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/sysreg: Update ID_AA64MMFR2

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

Message-ID: <7abe77fa-e9bb-4f50-86a8-5bae530bf068@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:34:05 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/sysreg: Update ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1 register



On 4/23/24 10:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 06:16:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 08:38:40AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
>>> This is not being used currently but will be required for upcoming
>>> features. I was under the impression that register fields (atleast
>>> for the ID registers) should be kept updated, with latest released
>>> spec ? Besides lately arch/arm64/tools/sysreg serves as very good
>>> reference for all necessary register fields.
> 
>> Why? The linux headers aren't documenting the architecture.
> 
> I don't know that it's something that we should be doing apropos of
> nothing but if people have done updates and they're not unreasonbly
> complicated to review it does seem useful to integrate them to avoid
> duplicated work.  There have been some issues with that around the ID
> registers (which are going to be on the places most prone to this I
> guess).

The other problem is by not updating the individual register fields with
the latest spec, it also gives an wrong impression about that field, and
also might create confusion.