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 4C130501295; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 13:15:11 +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=1791897313; cv=none; b=aHZm2VJtweZHXkDYP96QDsjK/CfDb8RkNbNpLM6STUYducap7eCQgYx0wnNaqFDMD/ifkGvV8CZwaBMPqa9231pitsEK75h6E4CnKfouQcmffwlqwz1P92UctXMxyWYTUqnJfmCyAKsDwCDWCugO/2hoxLjSC/riv7QNyFUvkrI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791897313; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Z+vMVIXE9PODI5Wjf5ENx6vbXQiccUCZkPzQaPzj5pI=; h=Message-ID:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date; b=ecbnpS39vZhmZTnK218KO97Io6VjDxPCoOIyDncbPPkxEMXrkCS9X8Gc0LaD8IgkJAwinCtocAHefGyE7ZW2mlnTb9u/C9CykTjVXJ4hC1ntWfhYzH5BJsAU7DUjYk9JS99zCwieV0EthYS/4vZpCBZXvomfsvKwFbXSe2qiO8k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KpzAElXV; 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="KpzAElXV" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FA311F00893; Tue, 13 Oct 2026 13:15:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791897311; bh=L2lzIxBqaIeKi35f2v1IsK/Ll38K3FBX56QBG+TlL6c=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=KpzAElXVs/a80GANpGx4NmrwLsXtScp1Lcos1ADoaJsLsie7O7T9OZU2unl3E14TK vGSnhhypHQtHPXtvBIkd7C0lxLBogySnmjDHsXsFFu653cTXYCj5yZeAZuVRDLJZkR hZ6PBVWxn3pF/EjMNsYuIzgELNdXz8fLKjsN2WSeE0sIY64CUl/TRSlYfzOaqSRGPG V0jH7yaKwpt4uHkFfgKt45uAtsBMkh9GZVQppTlnd6ZBnyXPoLgQMOts7Rj/Ja18B8 psjbP2cdoesppZFvRFUoxOIwK76PQwAuQRDYr3Q+MidCo/H0RiKWjTLhQu2M9iMKuO eILcRRgRiwPtw== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: sysreg: Mark fields the architecture dropped as RES0 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Fuad Tabba" Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, "Oliver Upton" , "Marc Zyngier" In-Reply-To: <20261013130247.4135515-4-fuad.tabba@linux.dev> References: <20261013130247.4135515-1-fuad.tabba@linux.dev> <20261013130247.4135515-4-fuad.tabba@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 13:15:11 +0000 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] arm64/sysreg: Semantic drift in auto-generated SCTLR_EL1_RES0 ma= sk consumed by KVM -- commit 60f264776efd2948b9996828935b2e973ae9b2bd Author: Fuad Tabba arm64: sysreg: Mark fields the architecture dropped as RES0 Commit d65bf6e317e7 turned the TME fields of SCTLR_EL1 into RES0, but left their copies in SCTLRMASK_EL1. PMICFILTR_EL0.T and BRBFCR_EL1.LASTFAILED have gone from the architecture as well, so mark them all as RES0 to match the spec. > diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg > index 341db8e9b6c37..99af1c39478be 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg > +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/sysreg [ ... ] > @@ -2663,11 +2662,7 @@ Field 57 EPAN > Field 56 EnALS > Field 55 EnAS0 > Field 54 EnASR > -Field 53 TME > -Field 52 TME0 > -Field 51 TMT > -Field 50 TMT0 > -Res0 49:47 > +Res0 53:47 [Severity: Medium] This change reclassifies bits 53:50 of SCTLR_EL1 (TME, TME0, TMT, TMT0) from Field to Res0. This silently regenerates the aggregate mask SCTLR_EL1_RES0 = to include these bits. This macro is actively consumed by KVM during C initialization via FORCE_RES0(SCTLR_EL1_RES0) in sctlr_el1_feat_map() in arch/arm64/kvm/config= .c: arch/arm64/kvm/config.c:sctlr_el1_feat_map() { ... FORCE_RES0(SCTLR_EL1_RES0), ... } Could this cause a regression in KVM guest feature configuration for SCTLR_= EL1 by forcing the removed TME bits to 0? Is KVM's initialization logic robust = to SCTLR_EL1_RES0 expanding to cover bits 53:50, and is forcing these bits to 0 for guests intended? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261013130247.4135= 515-1-fuad.tabba@linux.dev?part=3D3