linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] RISC-V: A proposal to add vendor-specific code

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]

Date:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 01:08:52 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Vincent Chen <vincentc@...estech.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        alankao@...estech.com, greentime@...estech.com, palmer@...ive.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zong@...estech.com,
        kito@...estech.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        deanbo422@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] RISC-V: A proposal to add vendor-specific code

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:52:52AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I fundamentally disagree with this… and think it should be the contrary.
> >
> > 1. The kernel shall support no vendor specific instructions whatsoever,
> > period.
> 
> I think what was meant above is
> 
> 1. If a vendor extension requires kernel support, that support
> must be able to be built into a kernel image without breaking support
> for CPUs that do not have that extension, to allow building a single
> kernel image that works on all CPUs.

No.  This literally means no vendor extensions involving instructions
or CSRs in the kernel.  They are fine for userspace, or for the M-mode
code including impementation of the SBI, but not for the kernel.