Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:26:19 -0800
From: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, broonie@...nel.org, Szabolcs.Nagy@....com,
	kito.cheng@...ive.com, keescook@...omium.org,
	ajones@...tanamicro.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
	palmer@...belt.com, conor.dooley@...rochip.com, cleger@...osinc.com,
	atishp@...shpatra.org, alex@...ti.fr, bjorn@...osinc.com,
	alexghiti@...osinc.com, corbet@....net, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
	oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, shuah@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org,
	guoren@...nel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com, evan@...osinc.com,
	xiao.w.wang@...el.com, apatel@...tanamicro.com,
	mchitale@...tanamicro.com, waylingii@...il.com,
	greentime.hu@...ive.com, heiko@...ech.de, jszhang@...nel.org,
	shikemeng@...weicloud.com, david@...hat.com, charlie@...osinc.com,
	panqinglin2020@...as.ac.cn, willy@...radead.org,
	vincent.chen@...ive.com, andy.chiu@...ive.com, gerg@...nel.org,
	jeeheng.sia@...rfivetech.com, mason.huo@...rfivetech.com,
	ancientmodern4@...il.com, mathis.salmen@...sal.de,
	cuiyunhui@...edance.com, bhe@...hat.com, ruscur@...sell.cc,
	bgray@...ux.ibm.com, alx@...nel.org, baruch@...s.co.il,
	zhangqing@...ngson.cn, catalin.marinas@....com, revest@...omium.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, joey.gouly@....com, shr@...kernel.io,
	omosnace@...hat.com, ojeda@...nel.org, jhubbard@...dia.com,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 05/28] riscv: zicfiss/zicfilp enumeration

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 05:59:24PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
>Yo,
>
>Series is RFC, so not gonna review it in depth, just wanted to comment
>on this particular patch.
>
>On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:21:30PM -0800, debug@...osinc.com wrote:
>> From: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
>>
>> This patch adds support for detecting zicfiss and zicfilp. zicfiss and zicfilp
>> stands for unprivleged integer spec extension for shadow stack and branch
>> tracking on indirect branches, respectively.
>>
>> This patch looks for zicfiss and zicfilp in device tree and accordinlgy lights
>> up bit in cpu feature bitmap. Furthermore this patch adds detection utility
>> functions to return whether shadow stack or landing pads are supported by
>> cpu.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@...osinc.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h      |  2 ++
>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h  |  1 +
>>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c      |  2 ++
>>  4 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> index a418c3112cd6..216190731c55 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> @@ -133,4 +133,22 @@ static __always_inline bool riscv_cpu_has_extension_unlikely(int cpu, const unsi
>>  	return __riscv_isa_extension_available(hart_isa[cpu].isa, ext);
>>  }
>>
>> +static inline bool cpu_supports_shadow_stack(void)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_USER_CFI
>
>In passing, I don't see any reason for not using IS_ENABLED() here.

No reason. I should probably do that. More readable.
Thanks.

>
>> +	return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZICFISS);
>> +#else
>> +	return false;
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline bool cpu_supports_indirect_br_lp_instr(void)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_USER_CFI
>> +	return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, ZICFILP);
>> +#else
>> +	return false;
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>>  #endif
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> index 06d30526ef3b..918165cfb4fa 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>> @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHPM		42
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMSTATEEN		43
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND		44
>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICFISS	45
>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICFILP	46
>>
>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX		64
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
>> index f19f861cda54..ee2f51787ff8 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/processor.h
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>>  #include <vdso/processor.h>
>>
>>  #include <asm/ptrace.h>
>> +#include <asm/hwcap.h>
>>
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>>  #define DEFAULT_MAP_WINDOW	(UL(1) << (MMAP_VA_BITS - 1))
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 98623393fd1f..16624bc9a46b 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svnapot, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVNAPOT),
>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svpbmt, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVPBMT),
>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicfiss, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICFISS),
>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicfilp, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICFILP),
>
>Anything you add to this array, you need to document in a dt-binding.

You mean Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/extensions.yaml
(or possibly any other yaml if needed?)

>Also, you added these in the wrong place. There's a massive comment
>before the array describing the order entries must be in, please take a
>look.

I see the comment.
In my defense, looks like I missed it when I was rebasing.

Will fix it.

>
>Thanks,
>Conor.
>
>
>>  };
>>
>>  const size_t riscv_isa_ext_count = ARRAY_SIZE(riscv_isa_ext);
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-riscv mailing list
>> linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

Powered by blists - more mailing lists