linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Mask out the F extension on systems without D

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <mhng-0c98c74e-8a51-435a-ae29-b95a56075dee@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To:     alankao@...estech.com
CC:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, greentime@...estech.com
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Mask out the F extension on systems without D

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:10:32 PDT (-0700), alankao@...estech.com wrote:
> Hi Palmer,
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:03:52PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> The RISC-V Linux port doesn't support systems that have the F extension
>> but don't have the D extension -- we actually don't support systems
>> without D either, but Alan's patch set is rectifying that soon.  For now
>> I think we can leave this in a semi-broken state and just wait for
>> Alan's patch set to get merged for proper non-FPU support -- the patch
>> set is starting to look good, so doing something in-between doesn't seem
>> like it's worth the work.
>>
>> I don't think it's worth fretting about support for systems with F but
>> not D for now: our glibc ABIs are IMAC and IMAFDC so they probably won't
>> end up being popular.  We can always extend this in the future.
>>
>> CC: Alan Kao <alankao@...estech.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 7 +++++++
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 17011a870044..652d102ffa06 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -57,5 +57,12 @@ void riscv_fill_hwcap(void)
>>  	for (i = 0; i < strlen(isa); ++i)
>>  		elf_hwcap |= isa2hwcap[(unsigned char)(isa[i])];
>>
>> +	/* We don't support systems with F but without D, so mask those out
>> +	 * here. */
>> +	if ((elf_hwcap & COMPAT_HWCAP_ISA_F) && !(elf_hwcap & COMPAT_HWCAP_ISA_D)) {
>> +		pr_info("This kernel does not support systems with F but not D");
>> +		elf_hwcap &= ~COMPAT_HWCAP_ISA_F;
>> +	}
>> +
>
> The commit message does address the problem and this patch does provide checks
> and helpful information to users, but I wonder if we really need this patch, for
> two reasons:
>
> * Just as you mentioned, current glibc ABI does not support such a thing as
>   IMAFC, so probably no one has had trouble with this.  To be honest, I suppose
>   that anybody (RISC-V enthusiasts or vendors) who really need F-only support
>   in kernel should get themself involved in the development by sending patches
>   to improve.
>
> * There are corner cases to let a F-only machine to pass the check in this
>   patch.  For instance, a vendor decides to name her extension ISA as doom,
>   and supports single-precision FP only, so her ISA string would be
>
>     IMAFCXdoom.
>
>   The variable elf_hwcap is calculated at the loop in line 57,58, the 'd'
>   from Xdoom would bypass the check, while the underlying machine does not
>   support double-precision FP.

Ah, yes, that makes sense.  I'd go the other way here and just be strict about 
parsing the ISA string: it's defined to be listed in a particular order, so we 
should really only be accepting legal ISA strings.

I'll submit a second patch to fix this behavior.

>
>>  	pr_info("elf_hwcap is 0x%lx", elf_hwcap);
>>  }
>> --
>> 2.16.4
>>
>
> I don't know if the reasons make sense to you, but anyway that's all I
> would like to say about this patch.
>
> Alan