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  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:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 03:29:36 +0100 (BST)
From:   "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
To:     Paul Cercueil <>
cc:     Zhou Yanjie <>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <>,
        Paul Burton <>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <>,,,,
        漆鹏振 <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] MIPS: Convert Ingenic to a generic board

Hi Paul,

> > FAOD <cpu-feature-overrides.h> is not a hack, but an optimisation measure
> > so that features known to be hardwired for a given machine/CPU do not have
> > to be dynamically queried every time referred.  In some cases that results
> > in large portions of code being optimised away by the compiler as well.
> Fair enough. Bloat-o-meter reports about ~100 KiB saved when that file is
> present. But we can't use it in a generic kernel, unfortunately.

 Well, run-time patching might be an alternative to get the best of both 
worlds, but someone would have to reimplement our feature selection system 
to use it.

> > The hardcoded value for a feature defined in <cpu-feature-overrides.h>
> > always has to be the same as one in the corresponding bit of the `options'
> > member of `struct cpuinfo_mips', in this case MIPS_CPU_TLBINV.
> In theory yes, in practice the CPU detection code is lagging behind...

 I wasn't aware of that.  In that case it has been a design abuse which 
has been missed by the maintainer when accepting patches.  It used to be 
the case that run-time detection was accurate and overrides were rather 
lazily added.

 Also I note Ingenic must have had a CPU erratum if our `decode_configs' 
doesn't just work, as the interpretation of CP0.Config[5:0] registers has 
been architectural and mandatory, and that for a reason.  It's only legacy 
MIPS I-IV processors that should require special attention here.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists