linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] riscv: add ISA parsing for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <032530b8-a26e-494f-bd9c-3e1661add5d4@rivosinc.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:14:26 +0200
From: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
 <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
 kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/12] riscv: add ISA parsing for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb



On 22/04/2024 11:35, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:53:10AM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>> On 19/04/2024 17:51, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:42:27PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>>>> The Zc* standard extension for code reduction introduces new extensions.
>>>> This patch adds support for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb. Zce, Zcmt and Zcmp
>>>> are left out of this patch since they are targeting microcontrollers/
>>>> embedded CPUs instead of application processors.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h | 4 ++++
>>>>  arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 4 ++++
>>>>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>>>> index 543e3ea2da0e..b7551bad341b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>>>> @@ -82,6 +82,10 @@
>>>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZACAS		73
>>>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XANDESPMU		74
>>>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIMOP		75
>>>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA		76
>>>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCB		77
>>>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCD		78
>>>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCF		79
>>>>  
>>>>  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127
>>>>  
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>> index 115ba001f1bc..09dee071274d 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
>>>> @@ -261,6 +261,10 @@ const struct riscv_isa_ext_data riscv_isa_ext[] = {
>>>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zfa, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZFA),
>>>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zfh, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZFH),
>>>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zfhmin, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZFHMIN),
>>>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zca, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA),
>>>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCB),
>>>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcd, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCD),
>>>> +	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zcf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCF),
>>>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zba, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBA),
>>>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
>>>>  	__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBC),
>>>
>>> Ye, this looks exactly like what I "feared".
>>
>> Ok but for instance, Qemu actually set Zc* based on C/F/D. So the ISA
>> string containing theses dependencies should actually also be allowed.
>> So should we simply ignore them in the ISA string and always do our own
>> "post-processing" based on C/F/D?
> 
> I'm not familiar with the contents of all of these extensions, but I
> assume the reasoning for splitting them out is that you can implement
> them but not maybe not implement C (or something similar)? If that's the
> case, you cannot always imply.

Yeah, they can be implemented independently so we need to be able to
parse them independently. However, the kernel currently requires C so we
should always have Zca/Zcf/Zcd. But if that changes in the future, then,
that won't be true anymore. Better keep it generic probably

Clément