Doesn't Zcmt repurpose FP opcodfes, so is in that second rare case? Zcm* all reuse encodings for c.fld, c.fsd, c.fldsp, c.fsdsp.

The intent is that if Smstateen is needed to provide a backward compatibility mechanism, then the extension AS A WHOLE would be enabled or disabled. (This, as I noted earlier, should be a rare

<gmail web has a shortcut to send an email which I accidentally hit> Thanks for the very helpful email - I think this is the first time that a new state enable has been added since Smstateen was

HI Greg, Thanks for the very helpful email - I think this is the first time that a new state enable has been added since Smstateen was ratified. The reason that it's required is that there's a new

Tariq, Thanks for enquiring about new ISA extension coordination with the Smstateen extension that was ratified last year. The first thing to note is that the primary purpose of and motivation for

Apologies. Clearly I am losing track of what is happening when! If you depend on it and its not ratified, then you either need to wait or get a waiver.

In this particular case, the issue is that the Smstateen spec comes later, and hasn't been addressed yet. I believe it's out of scope for Zc, it is simply noted that new state (the JVT CSR) is added

Please talk with Greg and decide. This is why we have cross group involvement. When a spec is ratified and a TG is disbanded, the Committee has ultimate responsibility. I have a question though. Is

Hi, We have a question on github about the implementation of smstateen for Zcmt (table jump). There's the JVT CSR which needs a state enable. The question is whether there is also a state-enable for

Hi Paul and Vedyas, At first, I started doing a PR for calling flushing an "effect" rather than a "side-effect" to satisfy some technical definition in the privileged specification. But after

Dr. Markku-Juhani O. Saarinen Senior Cryptography Architect PQShield Ltd M: +44 0 7548 620723 E: mjos@...W: www.pqshield.com Hi, Yes, the only allowed way of

The seed CSR must be accessed with a read-write instruction. A read-only instruction raises an illegal instruction exception. So one could consider the wiping as occurring due to the write and not as

Hi, Maybe the little issue has been solved. I am just curious. The follows come from "4.1. The seed CSR" in Cryptography Extensions Volume I. It talks about the side effect on read the seed

Hi, The nested virtualization support for KVM RISC-V is under development. You can expect patches to be available on the kvm-riscv mailing list after 3+ months. Regards, Anup

There is no implementation in KVM but the H extension is ready. Once an implementation is ready as well, it will be possible to examine the main sources of overhead, and possibly add extensions that

Hello All, Is there any accessible Linux KVM Nested Virtualization implementation? It doesn't seem like now any open source nested virtualizaion for kvm. Is H-extension now ready for nested

As alluded to in the unprivileged spec, what you propose is de facto legal because the definition of "cycle" is inherently fuzzy and implementation-dependent. See this lengthy discussion:

One way to appreciate the difference between "unprivileged CSRs" and "user mode" is to consider the related question: If a microcontroller implements the floating-point extension but does not

In the latest ratified Privileged Architecture document, 1.12, the hpmcounter* CSRs are specified as _unprivileged_ CSRs, not user CSRs. - John Hauser

The current PMP checks isolate M mode from lower-privilege modes. In terms of software compatibility and profiles, for U/S/HS modes - which are not aware of PMPs - the discussion can be pushed to