[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0b4dc8a-b37c-4e8e-be2e-bc8906615702@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:43:18 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, pcc@...gle.com, will@...nel.org,
anshuman.khandual@....com, joey.gouly@....com,
yury.khrustalev@....com, maz@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
frederic@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, surenb@...gle.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/9] arm64: report address tag when
FEAT_MTE_TAGGED_FAR is supported
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:41:00AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> +HWCAP3_MTE_FAR
> + Functionality implied by ID_AA64PFR2_EL1.MTEFAR == 0b0001.
> +Applications should interpret the values of these bits based on
> +the support for the 'mte_far' hwcap. If the support is not present,
> +the values of these bits should be considered as undefined otherwise valid.
The constant is HWCAP3_MTE_FAR and the cpuinfo is mtefar:
> + [KERNEL_HWCAP_MTE_FAR] = "mtefar",
The reference to the hwcap should probably be one of these, I'd go for
HWCAP3_MTE_FAR since it says hwcap.
> /*
> * The architecture specifies that bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are UNKNOWN
> * for tag check faults. Set them to corresponding bits in the untagged
> - * address.
> + * address if ARM64_MTE_FAR isn't supported.
> + * Otherwise, bits 63:60 of FAR_EL1 are KNOWN.
Should this say UNKNOWN?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists