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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:42:41 +0000 From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> CC: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>, <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, <marc.zyngier@....com>, <will.deacon@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, "Christoffer Dall" <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>, <nd@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: Support systems without FP/ASIMD On 14/11/16 11:48, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Hi Suzuki, > >> +static inline bool system_supports_fpsimd(void) >> +{ >> + return !cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD); >> +} > > Any particular reason why using negation instead of a ARM64_HAS_FPSIMD? > A potential problem would be the default cpus_have_const_cap() > implementation and the default static key having a slight performance > impact. The negation was chosen to avoid hotpatching in the most common case. But as you said, it has an impact on the other side. I think doing a one time hotpatching at boot time is more optimal than penalising a bunch of other users throughout the execution. I will take a look at changing it back to a ARM64_HAS_FPSIMD. >> }, >> + { >> + /* FP/SIMD is not implemented */ >> + .capability = ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD, >> + .def_scope = SCOPE_SYSTEM, >> + .min_field_value = 0, >> + .matches = has_no_fpsimd, >> + }, > > If we go for negation, I don't think we need a min_field_value at all, > the matching is done by the has_no_fpsimd() function. You're right. Suzuki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists