Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: ztso: disallow elf binaries needing TSO

[Conor.Dooley]

On 16/09/2022 07:34, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On 16/09/2022 05:23, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> [You don't often get email from vineetg@xxxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>>
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> As of now the software stack needs work to support ztso. Until that work
>> is finished, disallow binaries needing TSO.
>>
>> This patch is needed to help ztso ratification and prolifiration of tso
>> bits in tooling.
> 
> I have to admit to being a little confused here, if Ztso is not ratified
> why do we need to protect ourselves from it?

Also, since this is not marked as a fix, why would we not just apply the
patchset from Palmer that looks like a more complete version of this
patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20220902034352.8825-1-palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx/

Maybe you could offer an R-b or some comments on that patch instead?

Thanks,
Conor.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vineetg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes since v1
>>    - Build error (and boot tested on qemu)
>>    - Improved the comments a bit
>> ---
>>   arch/riscv/include/asm/elf.h      | 11 ++++++++++-
>>   arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/elf.h |  2 ++
>>   2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/elf.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/elf.h
>> index f53c40026c7a..b6b4542b3039 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/elf.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/elf.h
>> @@ -26,10 +26,19 @@
>>
>>   #define ELF_DATA       ELFDATA2LSB
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Make sure the elf being loaded is compatible with extensions.
>> + *
>> + * In the final incarnation this will get the extension list from DT and
>> + * make sure elf can run on given hardware+kernel.
>> + * For now disallow TSO built binaries.
>> + */
>> +#define rv_ext_ok(x)   (!((x)->e_flags & EF_RISCV_TSO))
>> +
>>   /*
>>    * This is used to ensure we don't load something for the wrong architecture.
>>    */
>> -#define elf_check_arch(x) ((x)->e_machine == EM_RISCV)
>> +#define elf_check_arch(x) ((x)->e_machine == EM_RISCV && rv_ext_ok(x))
>>
>>   #define CORE_DUMP_USE_REGSET
>>   #define ELF_EXEC_PAGESIZE      (PAGE_SIZE)
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/elf.h b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/elf.h
>> index d696d6610231..fa9e4c52c7ac 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/elf.h
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/uapi/asm/elf.h
>> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ typedef union __riscv_fp_state elf_fpregset_t;
>>   #define ELF_RISCV_R_TYPE(r_info)       ELF32_R_TYPE(r_info)
>>   #endif
>>
>> +#define EF_RISCV_TSO           (1 << 3)
> 
> s/EF/ELF ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Conor.
> 
>> +
>>   /*
>>    * RISC-V relocation types
>>    */
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-riscv mailing list
>> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
>