linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb 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]
Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2023 05:46:41 +0000
From:   "Wang, Xiao W" <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
CC:     "paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        "palmer@...belt.com" <palmer@...belt.com>,
        "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
        "Li, Haicheng" <haicheng.li@...el.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 6:28 PM
> To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
> Cc: paul.walmsley@...ive.com; palmer@...belt.com;
> aou@...s.berkeley.edu; anup@...infault.org; Li, Haicheng
> <haicheng.li@...el.com>; linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
> efi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension
> 
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 11:26, Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > A gentle ping.
> > Any other comments or suggestions for this patch? Or maybe we would
> review it in the Linux 6.7 development cycle?
> >
> 
> This is going to be 6.7 material at the earliest in any case.
> 
> I am fine with the change as far as the EFI code is concerned, but I'd
> suggest dropping EFI_ from the macro name, as it could be #define'd
> for other reasons too.

Yes, I agree with you. Would remove the EFI_ prefix in next version.

Thanks,
Xiao

> 
> 
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wang, Xiao W
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 6:24 PM
> > > To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: paul.walmsley@...ive.com; palmer@...belt.com;
> > > aou@...s.berkeley.edu; anup@...infault.org; Li, Haicheng
> > > <haicheng.li@...el.com>; linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
> > > efi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 5:39 PM
> > > > To: Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
> > > > Cc: paul.walmsley@...ive.com; palmer@...belt.com;
> > > > aou@...s.berkeley.edu; anup@...infault.org; Li, Haicheng
> > > > <haicheng.li@...el.com>; linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
> > > > efi@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize bitops with Zbb extension
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 04:39, Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch leverages the alternative mechanism to dynamically optimize
> > > > > bitops (including __ffs, __fls, ffs, fls) with Zbb instructions. When
> > > > > Zbb ext is not supported by the runtime CPU, legacy implementation is
> > > > > used. If Zbb is supported, then the optimized variants will be selected
> > > > > via alternative patching.
> > > > >
> > > > > The legacy bitops support is taken from the generic C implementation as
> > > > > fallback.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the parameter is a build-time constant, we leverage compiler builtin
> to
> > > > > calculate the result directly, this approach is inspired by x86 bitops
> > > > > implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > EFI stub runs before the kernel, so alternative mechanism should not be
> > > > > used there, this patch introduces a macro EFI_NO_ALTERNATIVE for this
> > > > > purpose.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why? The unpatched sequences work fine, no?
> > >
> > > It works. But there would be build warning: orphan section
> `.init.alternative'
> > > from `./drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/gop.stub.o' being placed in section
> > > `.init.alternative'. Besides, w/o this MACRO, the optimized variant would
> > > never be used at runtime, so this patch choose to disable alternative.
> > >
> > > BRs,
> > > Xiao
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h       | 266
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > >  drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile |   2 +-
> > > > >  2 files changed, 264 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > b/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > > index 3540b690944b..f727f6489cd5 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/bitops.h
> > > > > @@ -15,13 +15,273 @@
> > > > >  #include <asm/barrier.h>
> > > > >  #include <asm/bitsperlong.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_ZBB) ||
> defined(EFI_NO_ALTERNATIVE)
> > > > >  #include <asm-generic/bitops/__ffs.h>
> > > > > -#include <asm-generic/bitops/ffz.h>
> > > > > -#include <asm-generic/bitops/fls.h>
> > > > >  #include <asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h>
> > > > > +#include <asm-generic/bitops/ffs.h>
> > > > > +#include <asm-generic/bitops/fls.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +#include <asm/alternative-macros.h>
> > > > > +#include <asm/hwcap.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#if (BITS_PER_LONG == 64)
> > > > > +#define CTZW   "ctzw "
> > > > > +#define CLZW   "clzw "
> > > > > +#elif (BITS_PER_LONG == 32)
> > > > > +#define CTZW   "ctz "
> > > > > +#define CLZW   "clz "
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +#error "Unexpected BITS_PER_LONG"
> > > > > +#endif
> > > [...]