-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 57
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[FMV] Unify ssbs and ssbs2. #350
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
According to https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102105/latest Arm Architecture Reference Manual for A-profile architecture: Known issues 2.206 D22789 In section C5.2.25 "SSBS, Speculative Store Bypass Safe", under the heading 'Configurations', the text that reads: "This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS is implemented. Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED." is changed to read: "This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS2 is implemented. Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED." This suggests that it's not worth splitting FEAT_SSBS2 from FEAT_SSBS in the compiler, since FEAT_SSBS cannot be used for predicating the MRS/MSR instructions. Those can access PSTATE.SSBS only when FEAT_SSBS2 is available. Moreover, there are no hardware implementations which implement FEAT_SSBS without FEAT_SSBS2, therefore unifying these features in the specification should not be a regression for feature detection.
tmatheson-arm
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2024
labrinea
added a commit
to labrinea/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2024
According to https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102105/latest Arm Architecture Reference Manual for A-profile architecture: Known issues 2.206 D22789 In section C5.2.25 "SSBS, Speculative Store Bypass Safe", under the heading 'Configurations', the text that reads: "This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS is implemented. Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED." is changed to read: "This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS2 is implemented. Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED." This suggests that it's not worth splitting FEAT_SSBS2 from FEAT_SSBS in the compiler, since FEAT_SSBS cannot be used for predicating the MRS/MSR instructions. Those can access PSTATE.SSBS only when FEAT_SSBS2 is available. Moreover, there are no hardware implementations which implement FEAT_SSBS without FEAT_SSBS2, therefore unifying these features in the specification should not be a regression for feature detection. Approved in ACLE as ARM-software/acle#350
labrinea
added a commit
to llvm/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2024
According to https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102105/latest Arm Architecture Reference Manual for A-profile architecture: Known issues 2.206 D22789 In section C5.2.25 "SSBS, Speculative Store Bypass Safe", under the heading 'Configurations', the text that reads: "This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS is implemented. Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED." is changed to read: "This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS2 is implemented. Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED." This suggests that it's not worth splitting FEAT_SSBS2 from FEAT_SSBS in the compiler, since FEAT_SSBS cannot be used for predicating the MRS/MSR instructions. Those can access PSTATE.SSBS only when FEAT_SSBS2 is available. Moreover, there are no hardware implementations which implement FEAT_SSBS without FEAT_SSBS2, therefore unifying these features in the specification should not be a regression for feature detection. Approved in ACLE as ARM-software/acle#350
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
According to https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102105/latest Arm Architecture Reference Manual for A-profile architecture: Known issues
2.206 D22789
In section C5.2.25 "SSBS, Speculative Store Bypass Safe", under the heading 'Configurations', the text that reads:
"This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS is implemented.
Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED."
is changed to read:
"This register is present only when FEAT_SSBS2 is implemented.
Otherwise, direct accesses to SSBS are UNDEFINED."
This suggests that it's not worth splitting FEAT_SSBS2 from FEAT_SSBS in the compiler, since FEAT_SSBS cannot be used for predicating the MRS/MSR instructions. Those can access PSTATE.SSBS only when FEAT_SSBS2 is available. Moreover, there are no hardware implementations which implement FEAT_SSBS without FEAT_SSBS2, therefore unifying these features in the specification should not be a regression for feature detection.
name: Pull request
about: Technical issues, document format problems, bugs in scripts or feature proposal.
Thank you for submitting a pull request!
If this PR is about a bugfix:
Please use the bugfix label and make sure to go through the checklist below.
If this PR is about a proposal:
We are looking forward to evaluate your proposal, and if possible to
make it part of the Arm C Language Extension (ACLE) specifications.
We would like to encourage you reading through the contribution
guidelines, in particular the section on submitting
a proposal.
Please use the proposal label.
As for any pull request, please make sure to go through the below
checklist.
Checklist: (mark with
X
those which apply)PR (do not bother creating the issue if all you want to do is
fixing the bug yourself).
SPDX-FileCopyrightText
lines on topof any file I have edited. Format is
SPDX-FileCopyrightText: Copyright {year} {entity or name} <{contact informations}>
(Please update existing copyright lines if applicable. You can
specify year ranges with hyphen , as in
2017-2019
, and usecommas to separate gaps, as in
2018-2020, 2022
).Copyright
section of the sources of thespecification I have edited (this will show up in the text
rendered in the PDF and other output format supported). The
format is the same described in the previous item.
tricky to set up on non-*nix machines). The sequence can be
found in the contribution
guidelines. Don't
worry if you cannot run these scripts on your machine, your
patch will be automatically checked in the Actions of the pull
request.
introduced in this PR in the section Changes for next
release of the section Change Control/Document history
of the document. Create Changes for next release if it does
not exist. Notice that changes that are not modifying the
content and rendering of the specifications (both HTML and PDF)
do not need to be listed.
correctness of the result in the PDF output (please refer to the
instructions on how to build the PDFs
locally).
draftversion
is set totrue
in the YAML headerof the sources of the specifications I have modified.
in the README page of the project.