linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: Add sysctl to control discard of vstate during syscall

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: <aH6vA+e5v7NMMGnc@x1>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 14:20:03 -0700
From: Drew Fustini <pdp7pdp7@...il.com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...tanamicro.com>
Cc: Drew Fustini <fustini@...nel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
	Drew Fustini <dfustini@...storrent.com>,
	Andy Chiu <andybnac@...il.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv-bounces@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Add sysctl to control discard of vstate during
 syscall

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 04:54:25PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2025-07-21T14:35:38+02:00, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...tanamicro.com>:
> > Shouldn't the RISC-V Linux syscall ABI be defined somewhere?
> 
> To clarify this point.  My issue is with the following part in
> Documentation/arch/riscv/vector.rst:
> 
> >>  As indicated by version 1.0 of the V extension [1], vector registers are
> >>  clobbered by system calls.
> >>  [...]
> >>  1: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-v-spec/blob/master/calling-convention.adoc
> 
> The ISA does not say that vector registers are clobbered by system
> calls.  All the ISA says is:
> 
>   "This Appendix is only a placeholder to help explain the conventions
>    used in the code examples, and is not considered frozen or
>    part of the ratification process.  The official RISC-V psABI document
>    is being expanded to specify the vector calling conventions."
> 
> while the RISC-V psABI says:
> 
>   "The calling convention for system calls does not fall within the
>    scope of this document. Please refer to the documentation of the
>    RISC-V execution environment interface (e.g OS kernel ABI, SBI)."
> 
> We made a circular dependency, misinterpreted the ISA, and probably
> implemented a suboptimal syscall ABI -- preserving vector registers
> seems strictly better.

Thanks for providing these references. It does seem like this is
something that an OS can decide and is not mandated by the ISA or psABI.

> > How come we could have broken it with 9657e9b7d253?
> 
> We changed the ABI once, so maybe we can change it back?

Reverting 9657e9b7d253 would solve the performance issue for some
implementations that I've highlighted in this patch. However, I am
interested to hear from others that feel the current mandatory
clobbering behavior is ideal for testing (and maybe security?).

Thanks,
Drew