From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:56:27 +0000 (-0300) Subject: docs: speculation.txt: mark example blocks as such X-Git-Tag: v5.15~6391^2~21 X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=5d2a2c59108a00ee550fd9a51f26de72e209a703;p=platform%2Fkernel%2Flinux-starfive.git docs: speculation.txt: mark example blocks as such Identify the example blocks there, in order to avoid Sphinx warnings. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet --- diff --git a/Documentation/speculation.txt b/Documentation/speculation.txt index e9e6cba..50d7ea85 100644 --- a/Documentation/speculation.txt +++ b/Documentation/speculation.txt @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ observed to extract secret information. For example, in the presence of branch prediction, it is possible for bounds checks to be ignored by code which is speculatively executed. Consider the -following code: +following code:: int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) { @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ following code: return array[index]; } -Which, on arm64, may be compiled to an assembly sequence such as: +Which, on arm64, may be compiled to an assembly sequence such as:: CMP , #MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS B.LT less @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ microarchitectural state which can be subsequently measured. More complex sequences involving multiple dependent memory accesses may result in sensitive information being leaked. Consider the following -code, building on the prior example: +code, building on the prior example:: int load_dependent_arrays(int *arr1, int *arr2, int index) { @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ A call to array_index_nospec(index, size) returns a sanitized index value that is bounded to [0, size) even under cpu speculation conditions. -This can be used to protect the earlier load_array() example: +This can be used to protect the earlier load_array() example:: int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) {