linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: introduce helper cpu_has_hw

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]

Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:45:47 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc:     Jia He <justin.he@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@...il.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Jun Yao <yaojun8558363@...il.com>,
        Alex Van Brunt <avanbrunt@...dia.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>, hejianet@...il.com,
        Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: introduce helper
 cpu_has_hw_af()

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 03:20:41PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 18/09/2019 14:19, Jia He wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > index c96ffa4722d3..206b6e3954cf 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> > @@ -390,6 +390,7 @@ extern DECLARE_BITMAP(boot_capabilities, ARM64_NPATCHABLE);
> >   	for_each_set_bit(cap, cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS)
> >   bool this_cpu_has_cap(unsigned int cap);
> > +bool cpu_has_hw_af(void);
> >   void cpu_set_feature(unsigned int num);
> >   bool cpu_have_feature(unsigned int num);
> >   unsigned long cpu_get_elf_hwcap(void);
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > index b1fdc486aed8..c5097f58649d 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > @@ -1141,6 +1141,12 @@ static bool has_hw_dbm(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap,
> >   	return true;
> >   }
> > +/* Decouple AF from AFDBM. */
> > +bool cpu_has_hw_af(void)
> > +{
> Sorry for not having asked this earlier. Are we interested in,
> 
> "whether *this* CPU has AF support ?" or "whether *at least one*
> CPU has the AF support" ? The following code does the former.
> 
> > +	return (read_cpuid(ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1) & 0xf);

In a non-preemptible context, the former is ok (per-CPU).

-- 
Catalin