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]

Message-ID: <20181106065911.GB13526@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 22:59:11 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, zong@...estech.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, alankao@...estech.com,
        greentime@...estech.com, palmer@...ive.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Chen <vincentc@...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 02:51:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> With the stricter policy you suggest, we'd loose the ability to support
> some extensions that might be common:
> 
> - an extension for user space that adds new registers that must be
>   saved and restored on a task switch, e.g. FPU, DSP or NPU
>   instructions. ARM supports several incompatible extensions like
>   that in one kernel, and this is really ugly, but I suspect RISC-V
>   will already need the same thing to support all combinations of
>   standard extensions, so from a practical perspective it's not
>   much different for custom extension, aside from the question
>   how far you want to go to discourage custom extensions by
>   requiring users to patch their kernels.

Palmer already explain that this is supposed to be handled by the
XS bit + SBI calls.  I'm personally not totally sold on the SBI call
and standard ways to save the state in the instruction set, similar
to modern x86 might be a better option, but that is something the
privileged spec working group will have to decide.

> - A crypto instruction for a cipher that is used in the kernel
>   for speeding up network or block data encryption.
>   This would typically be a standalone loadable module, so
>   the impact of allowing custom extensions in addition to
>   standard ones is minimal.

And that is a prime example for something that should never be vendor
specific.  If an instruction set extension is useful for something
entirely generic it should be standardized in a working group as an
extension.