linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] RISC-V: provide a Kconfig option to disable parsing "riscv,isa"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230701-623f719c181e08b43930de11@orel>
Date:   Sat, 1 Jul 2023 12:49:53 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu,
        Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>, sunilvl@...tanamicro.com,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] RISC-V: provide a Kconfig option to disable
 parsing "riscv,isa"

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 02:19:46PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 09:46:48AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:44:18PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 02:16:49PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:20:55 PDT (-0700), Conor Dooley wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > +bool __initdata riscv_isa_fallback_cmdline = false;
> > > > > +static int __init riscv_isa_fallback_setup(char *__unused)
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe it's better to support =true and =false here?  Not sure it matters,
> > > > we're already down a rabbit hole ;)
> > > 
> > > Dunno, not implemented a cmdline param before. Seemed "cleaner" to check
> > > for presence, don't really care so I'll adapt to w/e.
> > >
> > 
> > I don't have a strong preference here, but to throw in more food for
> > thought, I see this DT-v1 vs. DT-v2 choice to be a bit analogous to the
> > DT vs. ACPI choice. The 'acpi' command line parameter, for RISC-V, can
> > be 'off', 'on', and 'force', where
> > 
> >   off -- disable ACPI if default was on
> >   on -- enable ACPI but allow fallback to DT
> >   force -- enable ACPI if default was off
> > 
> > So, if the default of the isa fallback command line option will depend on
> > Kconfig, then we may also want a 'force'.
> 
> I'm not sure that I understand what "force" would give us.
> There's 4 cases:
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is enabled, cmdline option is present:
>   cmdline option is ignored, fallback is taken if needed.
>   crash if neither are present.
> 
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is enabled, cmdline option is not present:
>   cmdline option is ignored, fallback is taken if needed.
>   crash if neither are present.
> 
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is disabled, cmdline option is present:
>   cmdline option takes priority, fallback is taken if needed.
>   crash if neither are present.
> 
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is disabled, cmdline option is not present:
>   fallback is never taken
>   crash if new properties aren't present.
> 
> I don't really see the value in having an equivalent to acpi=off,
> because the order of precedence is, to use your naming, "DT-v2" falling
> back to "DT-v1" & the default value concerns the use of the fallback.
> For ACPI, it is the other way around & the option controls the use of
> "DT-v2"'s analogue. Trying to slot in that logic:
> 
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is enabled, cmdline option "=on":
>   cmdline option is ignored, fallback is taken if needed.
>   crash if neither are present.
> 
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is enabled, cmdline option "=off":
>   cmdline option is prioritised, fallback is taken if needed.
>   crash if new properties aren't present.
> 
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is disabled, cmdline option "=on":
>   cmdline option is prioritised, fallback is taken if needed.
>   crash if neither are present.
> 
> - CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_FALLBACK is disabled, cmdline option "=off":
>   fallback is never taken
>   crash if new properties aren't present.
> 
> I think I prefer the behaviour of what I currently have & I don't really
> get where the "force" option is supposed to fit in either?
>

WFM

Thanks,
drew