linux-kernel - Re: [v6 PATCH] RISC-V: Remove unsupported isa string info print

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:58:23 -0700
From:   "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>
Cc:     "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "alankao@...estech.com" <alankao@...estech.com>,
        "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
        "paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        "johan@...nel.org" <johan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH] RISC-V: Remove unsupported isa string info print

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 06:28:59AM +0000, Atish Patra wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 09:53 +0800, Alan Kao wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:10:16AM -0700, hch@...radead.org wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 08:22:37AM +0000, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > > riscv_of_processor_hartid() or seems to be a better candidate. We
> > > > already check if "rv" is present in isa string or not. I will
> > > > extend
> > > > that to check for rv64i or rv32i. Is that okay ?
> > > 
> > > I'd rather lift the checks out of that into a function that is
> > > called
> > > exactly once per hart on boot (and future cpu hotplug).
> > 
> @Christoph
> Do you mean to lift the checks for "rv" as well from
> riscv_of_processor_hartid as well or leave that as it is? 

Sounds good to me (as a separate patch).  Again it makes much more
sense to validate this once early at boot time rather than a function
that can be called many tims during run time.