linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc/64: Set default CPU in Kconfig

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:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:15:43 -0600
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc/64: Set default CPU in Kconfig

Hi!

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:42:02PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 December 2022 14:38:40 Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >  	default "power8" if POWER8_CPU
> >  	default "power9" if POWER9_CPU
> >  	default "power10" if POWER10_CPU
> > +	default "e500mc64" if E5500_CPU
> 
> Now I'm looking at this change again... and should not E5500_CPU rather
> enforce -mcpu=e5500 flag? I know that your patch moves e500mc64 flag
> from the Makefile to Kconfig, but maybe it could be changed in some
> other followup patch...
> 
> Anyway, do you know what is e500mc64 core? I was trying to find some
> information about it, but it looks like some unreleased freescale core
> which predates e5500 core.

It looks that way yes.  It was submitted at
<https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2009-November/273251.html>
and committed as <https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b17f98b1c541>.  It looks as if
it was based on the e500mc core, while e5500 is a new core (or
significantly different anyway).

> ISA (without extensions like altivec) seems
> to be same for e500mc64, e5500 and e6500 cores and difference is only
> pipeline definitions in gcc config files. So if my understanding is
> correct then kernel binary compiled with any of these -mcpu= flag should
> work on any of those cores. Just for mismatches core binary will not be
> optimized for speed.

It appears the E500MC64 never made it outside of FSL, so it is best not
to use it at all, imo.


Segher