linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/19] riscv: Optimize riscv_cpu_isa_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]

Message-ID: <ZhlwpKuqVkQCr6u+@ghost>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:34:28 -0700
From: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
	Evan Green <evan@...osinc.com>,
	Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] riscv: Optimize
 riscv_cpu_isa_extension_(un)likely()

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:40:38AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:11:13PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > When alternatives are disabled, riscv_cpu_isa_extension_(un)likely()
> > checks if the current cpu supports the selected extension if not all
> > cpus support the extension. It is sufficient to only check if the
> > current cpu supports the extension.
> > 
> > The alternatives code to handle if all cpus support an extension is
> > factored out into a new function to support this.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@...osinc.com>
> > ---
> 
> >  static __always_inline bool riscv_cpu_has_extension_unlikely(int cpu, const unsigned long ext)
> >  {
> > -	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ALTERNATIVE) && riscv_has_extension_unlikely(ext))
> > -		return true;
> > +	compiletime_assert(ext < RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX,
> > +			   "ext must be < RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX");
> >  
> > -	return __riscv_isa_extension_available(hart_isa[cpu].isa, ext);
> > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ALTERNATIVE) && __riscv_has_extension_unlikely_alternatives(ext))
> > +		return true;
> > +	else
> > +		return __riscv_isa_extension_available(hart_isa[cpu].isa, ext);
> >  }
> 
> static __always_inline bool riscv_cpu_has_extension_likely(int cpu, const unsigned long ext)
> {
> 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ALTERNATIVE) && riscv_has_extension_likely(ext))
> 		return true;
> 
> 	return __riscv_isa_extension_available(hart_isa[cpu].isa, ext);
> }
> 
> This is the code as things stand. If alternatives are disabled, the if
> statement becomes if (0 && foo) which will lead to the function call
> getting constant folded away and all you end up with is the call to
> __riscv_isa_extension_available(). Unless I am missing something, I don't
> think this patch has any affect?

Yeah I fumbled this one it appears. I got thrown off by the nested
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_ALTERNATIVE). This patch eliminates the need for
this and maybe can avoid avoid confusion in the future.

- Charlie

> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.
>