linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] riscv: default to CONFIG_RISCV_SBI

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]

Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:51:28 +0000
From:   Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@...c27.com>
To:     Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@...onical.com>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] riscv: default to CONFIG_RISCV_SBI_V01=n

On 16 Dec 2021, at 14:17, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@...onical.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/16/21 14:49, Jessica Clarke wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2021, at 12:35, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@...onical.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The SBI 0.1 specification is obsolete. The current version is 0.3.
>>> Hence we should not rely by default on SBI 0.1 being implemented.
>> It’s what BBL implements, and some people are still using it,
>> especially given early hardware shipped before OpenSBI grew in
>> popularity.
>> Jess
> 
> Do you mean BBL is not developed anymore?
> 
> Some people may still be using a 0.1 SBI. But that minority stuck on an outdated software stack does not justify defaulting to deprecated settings in future Linux releases.

BBL is still actively maintained; its most recent commit was 24 days
ago. Also, the amount of code CONFIG_RISCV_SBI_V01 affects is tiny, so
I see no tangible benefit from making this change, just unnecessary
breakage of perfectly functional systems.

Jess