From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD345202963 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 23:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783551841; cv=none; b=Utjf5N2n9lv1Wr6HqrKpsv4J1PcNhpavst2tik6llN5hSy8BVn0AX4Mjbsriqwu5SRKujN0SWwttsp1bpXSeXHUVV9fWWi6JYk21MDfaFjiVuoQLe8GyNQ5w/GEToUqyLKnIQV/E4j1XROxDIFr2dST5RW8cHWOPTjmgHWekjJM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783551841; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6IyvamalGy1yLiYwR++Bdew+3++nYXZnTKnSjkw5aJU=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=hhND38uTj47Ej9nNK3g5twvoPzH3uTGCgt7rS+liBwJ7PXi0NWx2viUU565rtw3jVHu0t/kpTFqX45TshL5y7aD4Y2cvuDumuOfy2Ta8tUt3BrNCyRBWHjUC4PBwdO+q31y8T80FGZ1z2wp60SS5rABXOKEawcHa8kPurTIYuuE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=A9GZB9tc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="A9GZB9tc" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07B351F000E9; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 23:03:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783551840; bh=3Ua+xhXL0PFDMLwzqQXbI3q8pNVwT6nnyhwhanqlZmc=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=A9GZB9tcouL49mh6wHncazvoXpe8KwLiAXoZcY3mKLmbww5XPyLcNGPrveJ6iqIEE F5UHpxj1SCr7+deWikFVeOuGYrBR1eX/CpRYZKTyKBGWgfbdb5iLYiKAkPXTFDRj3P 60jx7nmeV1gatKGeh1CYEGd9ROeknqhUH7KhJbisCq9paaOqKaFNeua1aa0F9ydrZH JZN1q1hau26pnj5wWFa46zaCbwbf2fIraqr8atSaM81LKWGIwMXQ1Bd4m1MMzsgPQr 4A0t1SqCjaF/peUemYRiHG+Q6y5OZiDIBoHY/wT5OjHsq0T7YIyGqSnxoczMCaQZ9X O42ybC7VocDxg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6 v2 1/6] arm64: sysreg: Add layout for ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Colton Lewis" Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, "Marc Zyngier" , "Oliver Upton" In-Reply-To: <20260708225124.4130846-2-coltonlewis@google.com> References: <20260708225124.4130846-1-coltonlewis@google.com> <20260708225124.4130846-2-coltonlewis@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 23:03:59 +0000 Message-Id: <20260708230400.07B351F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The `EIESB` field in `ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1` is incorrectly defined a= s a `SignedEnum` instead of an `UnsignedEnum`, which will break cross-CPU f= eature resolution and capability detection. -- --- Patch [1]: [PATCH 6.6 v2 1/6] arm64: sysreg: Add layout for ID_AA64MMFR= 4_EL1 --- commit 553e432fbf7b950e883b1046b692639bcd77b3c1 Author: Marc Zyngier arm64: sysreg: Add layout for ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1 ARMv9.5 has introduced ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1 with a bunch of new features. Add t= he=20 corresponding layout. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240122181344.258974-5-maz@kernel.org > diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg > index 76ce150e7347e..f7180d391f829 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg > +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg > @@ -1669,6 +1669,43 @@ UnsignedEnum 3:0 TCRX [ ... ] > +UnsignedEnum 11:8 ASID2 > + 0b0000 NI > + 0b0001 IMP > +EndEnum > +SignedEnum 7:4 EIESB > + 0b0000 NI > + 0b0001 ToEL3 > + 0b0010 ToELx > + 0b1111 ANY > +EndEnum [Severity: Medium] Will defining EIESB as a SignedEnum cause issues with capability detection? If this generates ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1_EIESB_SIGNED as true, it seems like the cpufeature framework will extract and evaluate the 4-bit field 0b1111=20 (ANY) as -1. Since -1 < 2 (ToELx), could this cause the kernel to fail to detect the ANY error injection capability or resolve to the wrong capability level on heterogeneous systems? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260708225124.4130= 846-1-coltonlewis@google.com?part=3D1