linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] RISC-V: hwprobe: Expose Zba and Zbb

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: <mhng-8585bbf5-7d6a-4e09-9c5f-8c6f36092b76@palmer-ri-x1c9a>
Date:   Sat, 29 Apr 2023 13:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
CC:     Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        abrestic@...osinc.com, ajones@...tanamicro.com,
        coelacanthus@...look.com,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
        heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu, corbet@....net,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 3/3] RISC-V: hwprobe: Expose Zba and Zbb

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 06:40:51 PDT (-0700), Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:06:08PM -0700, Evan Green wrote:
>> Add two new bits to the IMA_EXT_0 key for ZBA and ZBB extensions. These
>> are accurately reported per CPU.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>>  Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst       |  7 +++++
>>  arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h |  2 ++
>>  arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c         | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
>> index 9f0dd62dcb5d..21f444a38359 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
>> @@ -64,6 +64,13 @@ The following keys are defined:
>>    * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C`: The C extension is supported, as defined
>>      by version 2.2 of the RISC-V ISA manual.
>>  
>> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA`: The Zba address generation extension is
>> +       supported, as defined in version 1.0 of the Bit-Manipulation ISA
>> +       extensions.
>> +
>> +  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_ZBB`: The Zbb extension is supporte, as defined
>
> Why is one EXT_ZBA and the other is IMA_ZBB? You do not use IMA below,
> so I assume this is a copy-paste mistake.

Looks like it.  Either way this was too late for the current merge 
window, so no big deal.

>
> Also, s/supporte/supported.
>
> Otherwise, looks fine.
> Cheers,
> Conor.
>
>> +       in version 1.0 of the Bit-Manipulation ISA extensions.
>> +
>>  * :c:macro:`RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0`: A bitmask that contains performance
>>    information about the selected set of processors.
>>  
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
>> index 8d745a4ad8a2..ef3b060d4e8d 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/hwprobe.h
>> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ struct riscv_hwprobe {
>>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0	4
>>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD		(1 << 0)
>>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C		(1 << 1)
>> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA		(1 << 2)
>> +#define		RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB		(1 << 3)
>>  #define RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0	5
>>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_UNKNOWN	(0 << 0)
>>  #define		RISCV_HWPROBE_MISALIGNED_EMULATED	(1 << 0)
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
>> index 5db29683ebee..adfcb6b64db7 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
>> @@ -121,6 +121,41 @@ static void hwprobe_arch_id(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
>>  	pair->value = id;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
>> +			     const struct cpumask *cpus)
>> +{
>> +	int cpu;
>> +	u64 missing = 0;
>> +
>> +	pair->value = 0;
>> +	if (has_fpu())
>> +		pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
>> +
>> +	if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c))
>> +		pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Loop through and record extensions that 1) anyone has, and 2) anyone
>> +	 * doesn't have.
>> +	 */
>> +	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
>> +		struct riscv_isainfo *isainfo = &hart_isa[cpu];
>> +
>> +		if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, ZBA))
>> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA;
>> +		else
>> +			missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBA;
>> +
>> +		if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, ZBB))
>> +			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB;
>> +		else
>> +			missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBB;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Now turn off reporting features if any CPU is missing it. */
>> +	pair->value &= ~missing;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static u64 hwprobe_misaligned(const struct cpumask *cpus)
>>  {
>>  	int cpu;
>> @@ -164,13 +199,7 @@ static void hwprobe_one_pair(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
>>  		break;
>>  
>>  	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_IMA_EXT_0:
>> -		pair->value = 0;
>> -		if (has_fpu())
>> -			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_FD;
>> -
>> -		if (riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, c))
>> -			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_IMA_C;
>> -
>> +		hwprobe_isa_ext0(pair, cpus);
>>  		break;
>>  
>>  	case RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_CPUPERF_0:
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>