On Oct 19, 2023, at 17:35, Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18/10/2023 19:26, Evan Green wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 5:53 AM Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/10/2023 03:45, Jerry Shih wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The `Zvkb` is the subset of `Zvbb`[1]. So, the `Zvkb` should be bundled with `Zvbb`.
>>>
>>> Hi Jerry,
>>>
>>> Thanks for catching this, I think some other extensions will fall in
>>> this category as well then (Zvknha/Zvknhb). I will verify that.
>>
>> The bundling mechanism works well when an extension is a pure lasso
>> around other extensions. We'd have to tweak that code if we wanted to
>> support cases like this, where the extension is a superset of others,
>> but also contains loose change not present anywhere else (and
>> therefore also needs to stand as a separate bit).
>
> For Zvbb and Zvknhb, I used the following code:
>
> static const unsigned int riscv_zvbb_bundled_exts[] = {
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVKB,
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVBB
> };
>
> static const unsigned int riscv_zvknhb_bundled_exts[] = {
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVKNHA,
> RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZVKNHB
> };
>
> Which correctly results in both extension (superset + base set) being
> enabled when only one is set. Is there something that I'm missing ?
We should not bundle zvknha and zvknhb together. They are exclusive.
Please check:
https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/issues/364#issuecomment-1726782096
-Jerry
