linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/16] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 09:20:09 +0200
From: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: 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 v5 08/16] riscv: add ISA parsing for Zca, Zcf, Zcd and Zcb



On 21/05/2024 21:49, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 04:52:48PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> 
>> +static int riscv_ext_zca_depends(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
>> +				 const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
>> +{
>> +	return __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) ? 0 : -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> +}
>> +static int riscv_ext_zcd_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
>> +				  const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
>> +{
>> +	return __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) &&
>> +	       __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_d) ? 0 : -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> +}
> 
> Could you write the logic in these out normally please? I think they'd
> be more understandable (particular this second one) broken down and with
> early return.

Yes sure. I'll probably make the same thing for zcf_validate as well as
removing the #ifdef and using IS_ENABLED():

static int riscv_ext_zcf_validate(const struct riscv_isa_ext_data *data,
				  const unsigned long *isa_bitmap)
{
	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT))
		return -EINVAL;

	if (__riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZCA) &&
	    __riscv_isa_extension_available(isa_bitmap, RISCV_ISA_EXT_f))
	       return 0;

	return -EPROBE_DEFER;
}

> 
> Otherwise,
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> 
> Cheers,
> Conor.