Re: Patch "riscv: Add a custom ISA extension for the [ms]envcfg CSR" has been added to the 6.7-stable tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/03/2024 08:49, Greg KH wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 08:05:30AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 05/03/2024 07:44, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>
>>> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
>>>
>>>       riscv: Add a custom ISA extension for the [ms]envcfg CSR
>>>
>>> to the 6.7-stable tree which can be found at:
>>>       http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
>>>
>>> The filename of the patch is:
>>>        riscv-add-a-custom-isa-extension-for-the-envcfg-csr.patch
>>> and it can be found in the queue-6.7 subdirectory.
>>>
>>> If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
>>> please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>   From 4774848fef6041716a4883217eb75f6b10eb183b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:55:34 -0800
>>> Subject: riscv: Add a custom ISA extension for the [ms]envcfg CSR
>>>
>>> From: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> commit 4774848fef6041716a4883217eb75f6b10eb183b upstream.
>>>
>>> The [ms]envcfg CSR was added in version 1.12 of the RISC-V privileged
>>> ISA (aka S[ms]1p12). However, bits in this CSR are defined by several
>>> other extensions which may be implemented separately from any particular
>>> version of the privileged ISA (for example, some unrelated errata may
>>> prevent an implementation from claiming conformance with Ss1p12). As a
>>> result, Linux cannot simply use the privileged ISA version to determine
>>> if the CSR is present. It must also check if any of these other
>>> extensions are implemented. It also cannot probe the existence of the
>>> CSR at runtime, because Linux does not require Sstrict, so (in the
>>> absence of additional information) it cannot know if a CSR at that
>>> address is [ms]envcfg or part of some non-conforming vendor extension.
>>>
>>> Since there are several standard extensions that imply the existence of
>>> the [ms]envcfg CSR, it becomes unwieldy to check for all of them
>>> wherever the CSR is accessed. Instead, define a custom Xlinuxenvcfg ISA
>>> extension bit that is implied by the other extensions and denotes that
>>> the CSR exists as defined in the privileged ISA, containing at least one
>>> of the fields common between menvcfg and senvcfg.
>>>
>>> This extension does not need to be parsed from the devicetree or ISA
>>> string because it can only be implemented as a subset of some other
>>> standard extension.
>>>
>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v6.7+
>>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240228065559.3434837-3-samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Ron Economos <re@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h |    2 ++
>>>    arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c |   14 ++++++++++++--
>>>    2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
>>> @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@
>>>    #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMSTATEEN                43
>>>    #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND           44
>>>
>>> +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG     127
>>> +
>>>    #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX              64
>>
>> These defines here need to be lower than RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX.
>> I think adjusting the value of XLINUXENVCFG to 63 will
>> suffice here, the max got bumped to 128 in 6.8.
> 
> Ok, then why was this tagged for stable inclusion as-is?

I dunno, I just reviewed the patch for mainline :)
I did see a rejection email originally for this patch, so
I was expecting to see a manual backport from Samuel for it.
  
> Can you propose a fixed change instead?

I'd just squash in the following, so that it uses a valid id:

diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
index 1b7f362713db..aa65ac8624a8 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SMSTATEEN		43
  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICOND		44
  
-#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127
+#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	63
  
  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_MAX		64
  






[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux