linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] riscv: sbi: add SBI FWFT extension calls

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: <20250424-27a672c1da15353051b52c59@orel>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:59:46 +0200
From: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, 
	Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/13] riscv: sbi: add SBI FWFT extension calls

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 02:35:02PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/04/2025 13:06, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Clément Léger wrote:
> >> Add FWFT extension calls. This will be ratified in SBI V3.0 hence, it is
> >> provided as a separate commit that can be left out if needed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <cleger@...osinc.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> >> index 379981c2bb21..7b062189b184 100644
> >> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> >> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> >> @@ -299,6 +299,8 @@ static int __sbi_rfence_v02(int fid, const struct cpumask *cpu_mask,
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static bool sbi_fwft_supported;
> > 
> > At some point we may want an SBI extension bitmap, but this is only the
> > second SBI extension supported boolean that I'm aware of, so I guess we're
> > still OK for now.
> 
> That seems reasonable to have a bitmap rather than duplicating
> *ext*_supported. If that's something that bothers you, I can take care
> of it and use a bitmap. SSE will also have a sse_supported boolean but
> in it's own driver file though.

Up to you. We can always do it later.

Thanks,
drew