linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: RISC-V: Allow patches for non-standard behavior

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, 13 Oct 2022 10:39:13 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        corbet@....net, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        conor.dooley@...rochip.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...osinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: RISC-V: Allow patches for non-standard behavior

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:26 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com> wrote:
>
> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
>
> The patch acceptance policy forbids accepting support for non-standard
> behavior.  This policy was written in order to both steer implementers
> towards the standards and to avoid coupling the upstream kernel too
> tightly to vendor-specific features.  Those were good goals, but in
> practice the policy just isn't working: every RISC-V system we have
> needs vendor-specific behavior in the kernel and we end up taking that
> support which violates the policy.  That's confusing for contributors,
> which is the main reason we have a written policy in the first place.
>
> So let's just start taking code for vendor-defined behavior.
>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>

Looks good to me from a KVM RISC-V perspective.

Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>

Regards,
Anup

> ---
>  Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst | 13 +++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> index 5da6f9b273d6..0a6199233ede 100644
> --- a/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
> @@ -29,7 +29,12 @@ their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
>  to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V
>  Foundation.  To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential
>  performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific
> -RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that
> -have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation.
> -(Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
> -containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.)
> +RISC-V extensions, we'll only accept patches for extensions that either:
> +
> +- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or
> +- Have been implemented in hardware that is either widely available or
> +  for which a timeline for availability has been made public.
> +
> +Hardware that does not meet its published timelines may have support
> +removed.  (Implementors, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel
> +trees containing code for any custom extensions that they wish.)
> --
> 2.38.0
>