linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: Use grid table over list table

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: <20240906172317.ohiokq7fzoc5emnq@desk>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:23:17 -0700
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Takahiro Itazuri <itazur@...zon.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, bp@...en8.de,
	zulinx86@...il.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: Use grid table over list table

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 04:26:49PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2024, Takahiro Itazuri <itazur@...zon.com> wrote:
> > Using a simple table, a line break in the first column would be
> > recognized as two rows. To avoid that, list table was used but it
> > is unreadable for plain text readers. Uses grid table instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Takahiro Itazuri <itazur@...zon.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Use grid table over list table (applying to not only GDS but also
> >   other vulnerabilities)
> > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240903132533.26458-1-itazur@amazon.com/
> 
> I see that Jon asked you to use a grid table.
> 
> But when I look at what's being changed, I can't help but think a
> definition list [1] might provide the best compromise between readable
> (and easily editable!) source rst and generated html. I don't think it
> has to be a *table* in either.

I second that, definition list looks to be a good balance between ease and
readability.

Roughly this is what it boils down to:

  **Not affected**
    Processor is not vulnerable.

  **Vulnerable**
    Processor is vulnerable and mitigation disabled.

  **Vulnerable: No microcode**
    Processor is vulnerable and microcode is missing mitigation.

  **Mitigation: AVX disabled, no microcode**
    Processor is vulnerable and microcode is missing mitigation. AVX
    disabled as mitigation.

  **Mitigation: Microcode**
    Processor is vulnerable and mitigation is in effect.

  **Mitigation: Microcode (locked)**
    Processor is vulnerable and mitigation is in effect and cannot be
    disabled.

  **Unknown: Dependent on hypervisor status**
    Running on a virtual guest processor that is affected but with no way
    to know if host processor is mitigated or vulnerable.