linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation

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]

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 14:33:46 +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 v4 02/11] riscv: add ISA extensions validation



On 30/04/2024 14:12, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:58:11PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
>> Yeah, see what you mean. I think we also need to define if we want to
>> expose all the ISA extensions in /proc/cpuinfo (ie no matter the config
>> of the kernel) or not. If so, additional validate() callback would make
>> sense. If we want to keep the full ISA string in /proc/info, then we
>> will need another way of doing so.
> 
> If extensions aren't usable, they shouldn't be in /proc/cpuinfo either
> as there's programs that parse that to figure out what they can use,
> possibly even only checking a single cpu and using that as gospel.
> That's why there's that per-hart-isa thing that was added by one of your
> colleagues last year.

Acked. So indeed, validate() callback for F/V dependent extensions makes
sense.

Clément