linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: Work to remove kernel dependence on the M-extension

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: <CAK8P3a33g1D2mE2Z_ZsukMCBZ3gCGdDbH+2osHZe0Y8GoO_5UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 12:47:50 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Michael T. Kloos" <michael@...haelkloos.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Work to remove kernel dependence on the M-extension

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:43 PM Michael T. Kloos
<michael@...haelkloos.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your feedback.  I don't really have much of an
> opinion about that right now aside from that I know where things
> are in the current structure and am comfortable.  My goal with this
> contribution was to keep it in-line with the current config
> structure.  Hence, I put it right next to the menuconfig option
> to control CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C under Platform Type.
>
> I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to rethinking the way platform
> feature selection is presented in menuconfig.  If people feel that
> most users will be looking for an rv64gc config and that it should
> be made for clear, perhaps it could be done.  I would need to do
> more thinking about how exactly that would look.
>
> I do think that it is outside the scope of this patch.  Were you
> working on something like that and worried about a merge conflict?

As I said, I think your patch is ok, and I have no objections to it
being merged. It's just one more option among others that
can cause problems if users get it wrong.

       Arnd