linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/19] csky: Build infrastructure

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3A+BEmBnGCSiRdoaiqSJjhC5zaZebcq2GPVaLJatBk8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:38:56 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com>
Cc:     linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        c-sky_gcc_upstream@...ky.com, gnu-csky@...tor.com,
        thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, wbx@...ibc-ng.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/19] csky: Build infrastructure

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 03:00:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> Ok, I understand the part about ck610 being incompatible, but I'm
>> still not sure about the 8xx ones: Do you mean it's impossible to
>> have one kernel that runs across all of them for some other reason,
>> or is it something you haven't allowed because you see no use for it?
>
> Sorry, Csky gcc need "-mcpu=ck807" or "-mcpu=ck810" or "-mcpu=ck860" to
> determine the back-end policy. So I must seperate them with different vmlinux.

Usually the way gcc handles this, either each CPU is a strict superset
of another
one, so you just need to specify the one with the smallest instruction set,
or you have an option like -mcpu=generic that produces the common subset.

>> This is basically the same question as above: For c610, using the fixed
>> value is sufficient, because it's incompatible with the others. But if you want
>> to run the same kernel on both ck810 and ck860, then it needs some form
>> of runtime detection.
> Sorry, currently no runtime detection.
> But I agree with you that one vmlinux for all cpus is a good design for compat.
>
>> On other architectures, the L1_CACHE_BYTES constant is the maximum
>> possible cache line size, and the cache flush function uses the actual size
> The same with above, we don't detect cpus on runtime. So we just make it
> simple here.

Ok, fair enough. It's something that can always be added later, as long as
we keep this in mind early on.

       Arnd