linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 27/30] KVM: arm64: selftests: Remove spurious check for single bit safe values

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: <dcbeb11f-bebe-465a-be4e-2461d3efc21b@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:05:15 +0000
From: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oupton@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 27/30] KVM: arm64: selftests: Remove spurious check for
 single bit safe values

Hi Mark,

On 12/23/25 01:21, Mark Brown wrote:
> get_safe_value() currently asserts that bitfields it is generating a safe
> value for must be more than one bit wide but in actual fact it should
> always be possible to generate a safe value to write to a bitfield even if
> it is just the current value and the function correctly handles that.
> Remove the assert.
> 
> Fixes: bf09ee918053e ("KVM: arm64: selftests: Remove ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_BITS and its last user")
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>

Yes, this assert was unneeded.

Reviewed-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>

Thanks,

Ben