Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 20:25:07 -0700
From:   Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.18 01/11] Documentation: Add documentation for
 Processor MMIO Stale Data
Message-ID: <20220615032507.go6t24dyzotpe3xv@guptapa-desk>
References: <20220614183720.861582392@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20220614183721.248466580@linuxfoundation.org>
 <94468546-5571-b61f-0d98-8501626e30e3@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <94468546-5571-b61f-0d98-8501626e30e3@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 08:06:37AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>On 6/15/22 01:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> +  .. list-table::
>> +
>> +     * - 'Not affected'
>> +       - The processor is not vulnerable
>> +     * - 'Vulnerable'
>> +       - The processor is vulnerable, but no mitigation enabled
>> +     * - 'Vulnerable: Clear CPU buffers attempted, no microcode'
>> +       - The processor is vulnerable, but microcode is not updated. The
>> +         mitigation is enabled on a best effort basis.
>> +     * - 'Mitigation: Clear CPU buffers'
>> +       - The processor is vulnerable and the CPU buffer clearing mitigation is
>> +         enabled.
>> +
>> +If the processor is vulnerable then the following information is appended to
>> +the above information:
>> +
>> +  ========================  ===========================================
>> +  'SMT vulnerable'          SMT is enabled
>> +  'SMT disabled'            SMT is disabled
>> +  'SMT Host state unknown'  Kernel runs in a VM, Host SMT state unknown
>> +  ========================  ===========================================
>> +
>
>Why is list-table used in sysfs table instead of usual ASCII table in SMT
>vulnerabilities list above? I think using ASCII table in both cases is enough
>for the purpose.

Maybe you are right (and I am no expert in this), but quite a few
documents use list-table for sysfs status:

   https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/mds.rst
   https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst
   https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/tsx_async_abort.rst