| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZZbuKCvATa7yyQOc@LeoBras>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 14:43:04 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
guoren@...nel.org,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
palmer@...belt.com,
panqinglin2020@...as.ac.cn,
bjorn@...osinc.com,
conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
peterz@...radead.org,
keescook@...omium.org,
wuwei2016@...as.ac.cn,
xiaoguang.xing@...hgo.com,
chao.wei@...hgo.com,
unicorn_wang@...look.com,
uwu@...nowy.me,
jszhang@...nel.org,
wefu@...hat.com,
atishp@...shpatra.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] riscv: Add Zicbop instruction definitions & cpufeature
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 05:40:50PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 12:03:57PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> ...
> > > > > > What we need here is something like:
> > > > > > + enum {
> > > > > > + PREFETCH_I,
> > > > > > + PREFETCH_R,
> > > > > > + PREFETCH_W,
> > > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > Can't use enum. This header may be included in assembly.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I suggest defines then, since it's better to make it clear instead of
> > > > using 0, 1, 3.
> > >
> > > I don't think we gain anything by adding another define in order to create
> > > the instruction define. We have to review the number sooner or later. I'd
> > > prefer we use the number inside the instruction define so we only need
> > > to look one place, which is also consistent with how we use FUNC fields.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I was unable to understand the reasoning.
> >
> > If we are going to review the numbers sooner or later, would not it be
> > better to have the instruction define to have "PREFETCH_W" instead of a
> > number, and a unified list of defines for instructions.
> >
> > This way we don't need to look into the code for 0's 1's and 3's, but
> > instead just replace the number in the define list.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> PREFETCH_W isn't defined as just 3, it's defined as
> INSN_S(OPCODE_OP_IMM, FUNC3(6), __RS2(3), ...)
>
> Adding a define (PREFETCH_W_RS2?) for the 3 just bloats the code and
> requires reviewers of PREFETCH_W to go look up another define.
> OPCODE_OP_IMM gets a define because it's used in multiple instructions,
> but everything else in an instruction definition should be a number
> exactly matching the spec, making it easy to review, or be an argument
> passed into the instruction macro.
Ok, I see your point now.
It's fine by me, then.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + #define CBO_PREFETCH(type, base, offset) \
> > > > > > + INSN_S(OPCODE_OP_IMM, FUNC3(6), __RS2(type), \
> > > > > > + SIMM12(offset & ~0x1f), RS1(base))
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. I suggested we mask offset as well, but ideally we'd detect a caller
> > > > > using an offset with nonzero lower 5 bits at compile time.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest the compiler would take care of this, but I am not sure
> > > > about the assembly, since I am not sure if it gets any optimization.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we can detect a caller with non-zero offset at compile time,
> > > > since it will be used in locks which can be at (potentially) any place in
> > > > the block size. (if you have any idea though, please let me know :) )
>
> I forgot to reply to this before. The reason I think it may be possible to
> validate offset at compile time is because it must be a constant, i.e.
> __builtin_constant_p(offset) must return true. So maybe something like
>
> static_assert(__builtin_constant_p(offset) && !(offset & 0x1f))
>
> I'll try to find time to play with it.
>
Let me know if you find anything.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, we could create a S-Type macro which deliberately
> > > > ignores imm[4:0], like
> > > >
> > > > + INSN_S_TRUNCATE(OPCODE_OP_IMM, FUNC3(6), __RS2(3), \
> > > > + SIMM12(offset), RS1(base))
> > > >
> > > > Which saves the bits 11:5 of offset into imm[11:5], and zero-fill
> > > > imm[4:0], like
> > > >
> > > > +#define DEFINE_INSN_S \
> > > > + __DEFINE_ASM_GPR_NUMS \
> > > > +" .macro insn_s, opcode, func3, rs2, simm12, rs1\n" \
> > > > +" .4byte ((\\opcode << " __stringify(INSN_S_OPCODE_SHIFT) ") |" \
> > > > +" (\\func3 << " __stringify(INSN_S_FUNC3_SHIFT) ") |" \
> > > > +" (.L__gpr_num_\\rs2 << " __stringify(INSN_S_RS2_SHIFT) ") |" \
> > > > +" (.L__gpr_num_\\rs1 << " __stringify(INSN_S_RS1_SHIFT) ") |" \
> > > > +" (((\\simm12 >> 5) & 0x7f) << " __stringify(INSN_S_SIMM7_SHIFT) "))\n" \
> > > > +" .endm\n"
> > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Does this make sense?
> > >
> > > If we create a special version of INSN_S, then I suggest we create one
> > > where its two SIMM fields are independent and then define prefetch
> > > instructions like this
> > >
> > > #define PREFETCH_W(base, offset) \
> > > INSN_S_SPLIT_IMM(OPCODE_OP_IMM, FUNC3(6), __RS2(3), \
> > > SIMM_11_5(offset >> 5), SIMM_4_0(0), RS1(base))
> > >
> > > which would allow simple review against the spec and potentially
> > > support other instructions which use hard coded values in the
> > > immediate fields.
> > >
> >
> > I agree, it looks better this way.
> >
> > We could have:
> > INSN_S_SPLIT_IMM(OPCODE, FUNC3, RS1, RS2, SIMM_11_5, SIMM_4_0)
> >
> > and implement INSN_S like:
> > #define INSN_S(OPCODE, FUNC3, RS1, RS2, SIMM_11_0) \
> > INSN_S_SPLIT_IMM(OPCODE, FUNC3, RS1, RS2, \
> > SIMM_11_0 >> 5, SIMM_11_0 & 0x1f)
>
> That won't work since SIMM_11_0 will be a string. Actually, with
> stringification in mind, I don't think defining INSN_S_SPLIT_IMM()
> is a good idea.
I don't see how SIMM_11_0 will be a string here. Is this due to using it
on asm code?
I understand a user will call
---
PREFETCH_W(base, offset), which becomes:
INSN_S(OPCODE_OP_IMM, 6, base, 3, offset) , which becomes:
INSN_S_SPLIT_IMM(OPCODE_OP_IMM, FUNC3(6), RS1(base), RS2(3), \
SIMM_11_5(offset >> 5), SIMM_4_0(offset & 0x1f))
---
I don't see an issue here, the same wouldwork for every INSN_S()
Now suppose we make PREFETCH_W use SPLIT_IMM directly:
---
PREFETCH_W(base, offset), which becomes:
INSN_S_SPLIT_IMM(OPCODE_OP_IMM, FUNC3(6), RS1(base), RS2(3), \
SIMM_11_5(offset >> 5), SIMM_4_0(0))
---
I don't see how stringification gets in the way.
Thanks!
Leo
#define CBO_PREFETCH(type, base, offset) \
> > > > > > + INSN_S(OPCODE_OP_IMM, FUNC3(6), __RS2(type), \
> > > > > > + SIMM12(offset & ~0x1f), RS1(base))
>
> Thanks,
> drew
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists