linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/13] riscv: fatorize hwprobe ISA extension reporting

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: <20231012-matriarch-lunar-819c1d2d7996@spud>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:53:43 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/13] riscv: fatorize hwprobe ISA extension reporting

Drew,

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 01:14:26PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> Factorize ISA extension reporting by using a macro rather than
> copy/pasting extension names. This will allow adding new extensions more
> easily.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> index 473159b5f303..5ce593ce07a4 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
> @@ -145,20 +145,18 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
>  	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {

We were gonna add a comment here about when it is and is not safe to use
riscv_isa_extension_available() IIRC. Did that ever end up in a patch?

>  		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;
> -
> -		if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, ZBS))
> -			pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBS;
> -		else
> -			missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_ZBS;
> +#define CHECK_ISA_EXT(__ext)							\
> +		do {								\
> +			if (riscv_isa_extension_available(isainfo->isa, __ext))	\
> +				pair->value |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_##__ext;	\
> +			else							\
> +				missing |= RISCV_HWPROBE_EXT_##__ext;		\
> +		} while (false)							\
> +
> +		CHECK_ISA_EXT(ZBA);
> +		CHECK_ISA_EXT(ZBB);
> +		CHECK_ISA_EXT(ZBS);
> +#undef CHECK_ISA_EXT
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Now turn off reporting features if any CPU is missing it. */
> -- 
> 2.42.0
> 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)