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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20181106065649.GA13526@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:56:49 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Nick Kossifidis <mick@....forth.gr>
Cc:     Vincent Chen <vincentc@...estech.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        arnd@...db.de, alankao@...estech.com, greentime@...estech.com,
        palmer@...ive.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        zong@...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 09:39:29PM +0200, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
> a) By directly modifying your custom CSRs, it means that we will need
> compiler support in order to compile a kernel with your code in it. This
> will break CI systems and will introduce various issues on testing and
> reviewing your code. In general if we need custom toolchains to compile
> the kernel, that may be unavailable (vendors will not always open source
> their compiler support), we won't be able to maintain a decent level of
> code quality in the tree. How can the maintainer push your code on the
> repository if he/she can't even perform a basic compilation test ?

And that (besides avoiding the wild growth of extensions) is the major
reason why accepting vendor specific CSRs or instructions is a no-go.