mbox series

[v2,0/2] crypto: arm/sha-neon - avoid ADRL instructions

Message ID 20200916061418.9197-1-ardb@kernel.org
Headers show
Series crypto: arm/sha-neon - avoid ADRL instructions | expand

Message

Ard Biesheuvel Sept. 16, 2020, 6:14 a.m. UTC
Remove some occurrences of ADRL in the SHA NEON code adopted from the
OpenSSL project.

I will leave it to the Clang folks to decide whether this needs to be
backported and how far, but a Cc stable seems reasonable here.

Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
Cc: Peter Smith <Peter.Smith@arm.com>

Ard Biesheuvel (2):
  crypto: arm/sha256-neon - avoid ADRL pseudo instruction
  crypto: arm/sha512-neon - avoid ADRL pseudo instruction

 arch/arm/crypto/sha256-armv4.pl       | 4 ++--
 arch/arm/crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped | 4 ++--
 arch/arm/crypto/sha512-armv4.pl       | 4 ++--
 arch/arm/crypto/sha512-core.S_shipped | 4 ++--
 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Comments

Nick Desaulniers Sept. 17, 2020, 12:53 a.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:14 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>

> Remove some occurrences of ADRL in the SHA NEON code adopted from the

> OpenSSL project.

>

> I will leave it to the Clang folks to decide whether this needs to be

> backported and how far, but a Cc stable seems reasonable here.

>

> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>

> Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>

> Cc: Peter Smith <Peter.Smith@arm.com>


Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>


Thanks Ard:
compile+boot tested each combination of:

[gcc, clang]x[defconfig, defconfig+CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL=y].

Now, if I additionally apply:
1. this series
2. the adr_l series:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200914095706.3985-1-ardb@kernel.org/
3. unrelated fix for -next #1:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200916200255.1382086-1-ndesaulniers@google.com/
4. unrelated fix for -next #2:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200917001934.2793370-1-ndesaulniers@google.com/
5. small fixup to 01/12 from #2:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/CAMj1kXFmF_24d-7W8AWTJR-PCcja7bUdHhYKptGQmsV4vNp=sA@mail.gmail.com/
6. vfp fixup for thumb+gcc:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/CAMj1kXHEpPc0MSoMrCxEkyb44AkLM2NJJGtOXLpr6kxBHS0vfA@mail.gmail.com/
7. disable CONFIG_IWMMXT https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/975

Then build with Clang's integrated assembler:
$ ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- make LLVM=1 LLVM_IAS=1 -j71

I see a bunch of warnings
(https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/858) which we will
fix, but I am able to build and boot.  (CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL=y has
many more issues, so I didn't pursue that further).

Either way, these two adrl patches go a long way towards getting Clang
to assemble an ARCH=arm kernel; thank you for all of the work that
went into them.

One thing I noticed was that if I grep for `adrl` with all of the
above applied within arch/arm, I do still see two more instances:

crypto/sha256-armv4.pl
609:    adrl    $Ktbl,K256

crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped
2679:   adrl    r3,K256

Maybe those can be fixed up in patch 01/02 of this series for a v2?  I
guess in this cover letter, you did specify *some occurrences of
ADRL*.  It looks like those are guarded by
605 # ifdef __thumb2__
...
608 # else
609   adrl  $Ktbl,K256

So are these always built as thumb2?

>

> Ard Biesheuvel (2):

>   crypto: arm/sha256-neon - avoid ADRL pseudo instruction

>   crypto: arm/sha512-neon - avoid ADRL pseudo instruction

>

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha256-armv4.pl       | 4 ++--

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped | 4 ++--

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha512-armv4.pl       | 4 ++--

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha512-core.S_shipped | 4 ++--

>  4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

>

> --

> 2.17.1

>



-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Ard Biesheuvel Sept. 17, 2020, 6:08 a.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 03:53, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:14 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:

> >

> > Remove some occurrences of ADRL in the SHA NEON code adopted from the

> > OpenSSL project.

> >

> > I will leave it to the Clang folks to decide whether this needs to be

> > backported and how far, but a Cc stable seems reasonable here.

> >

> > Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>

> > Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>

> > Cc: Peter Smith <Peter.Smith@arm.com>

>

> Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>

>


Thanks!

> Thanks Ard:

> compile+boot tested each combination of:

>

> [gcc, clang]x[defconfig, defconfig+CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL=y].

>

> Now, if I additionally apply:

> 1. this series

> 2. the adr_l series:

> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200914095706.3985-1-ardb@kernel.org/

> 3. unrelated fix for -next #1:

> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200916200255.1382086-1-ndesaulniers@google.com/

> 4. unrelated fix for -next #2:

> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200917001934.2793370-1-ndesaulniers@google.com/

> 5. small fixup to 01/12 from #2:

> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/CAMj1kXFmF_24d-7W8AWTJR-PCcja7bUdHhYKptGQmsV4vNp=sA@mail.gmail.com/

> 6. vfp fixup for thumb+gcc:

> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/CAMj1kXHEpPc0MSoMrCxEkyb44AkLM2NJJGtOXLpr6kxBHS0vfA@mail.gmail.com/

> 7. disable CONFIG_IWMMXT https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/975

>

> Then build with Clang's integrated assembler:

> $ ARCH=arm CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux-gnueabihf- make LLVM=1 LLVM_IAS=1 -j71

>

> I see a bunch of warnings

> (https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/858) which we will

> fix, but I am able to build and boot.  (CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL=y has

> many more issues, so I didn't pursue that further).

>

> Either way, these two adrl patches go a long way towards getting Clang

> to assemble an ARCH=arm kernel; thank you for all of the work that

> went into them.

>


My pleasure :-)

> One thing I noticed was that if I grep for `adrl` with all of the

> above applied within arch/arm, I do still see two more instances:

>

> crypto/sha256-armv4.pl

> 609:    adrl    $Ktbl,K256

>

> crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped

> 2679:   adrl    r3,K256

>

> Maybe those can be fixed up in patch 01/02 of this series for a v2?  I

> guess in this cover letter, you did specify *some occurrences of

> ADRL*.  It looks like those are guarded by

> 605 # ifdef __thumb2__

> ...

> 608 # else

> 609   adrl  $Ktbl,K256

>

> So are these always built as thumb2?

>


No need. The code in question is never assembled when built as part of
the kernel, only when building OpenSSL for user space. It appears
upstream has removed this already, but they have also been playing
weird games with the license blocks, so I'd prefer fixing the code
here rather than pulling the latest version.
Nick Desaulniers Sept. 18, 2020, 8:08 p.m. UTC | #3
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:08 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>

> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 03:53, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:

> >

> > One thing I noticed was that if I grep for `adrl` with all of the

> > above applied within arch/arm, I do still see two more instances:

> >

> > crypto/sha256-armv4.pl

> > 609:    adrl    $Ktbl,K256

> >

> > crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped

> > 2679:   adrl    r3,K256

> >

> > Maybe those can be fixed up in patch 01/02 of this series for a v2?  I

> > guess in this cover letter, you did specify *some occurrences of

> > ADRL*.  It looks like those are guarded by

> > 605 # ifdef __thumb2__

> > ...

> > 608 # else

> > 609   adrl  $Ktbl,K256

> >

> > So are these always built as thumb2?

> >

>

> No need. The code in question is never assembled when built as part of

> the kernel, only when building OpenSSL for user space. It appears

> upstream has removed this already, but they have also been playing

> weird games with the license blocks, so I'd prefer fixing the code

> here rather than pulling the latest version.


Oh, like mixing and matching licenses throughout the source itself?
Or changing the source license?

(I've always wondered if software licenses apply to an entire
repository, or were per source file?  Could you mix and match licenses
throughout your project?  Not sure why you'd do that; maybe to make
some parts reusable for some other project.  But if you could, could
you do different sections of a file under different licenses? Again,
probably a worthless hypothetical; you could just split up your source
files better).
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Ard Biesheuvel Sept. 18, 2020, 8:30 p.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 22:08, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
>

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:08 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:

> >

> > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 03:53, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:

> > >

> > > One thing I noticed was that if I grep for `adrl` with all of the

> > > above applied within arch/arm, I do still see two more instances:

> > >

> > > crypto/sha256-armv4.pl

> > > 609:    adrl    $Ktbl,K256

> > >

> > > crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped

> > > 2679:   adrl    r3,K256

> > >

> > > Maybe those can be fixed up in patch 01/02 of this series for a v2?  I

> > > guess in this cover letter, you did specify *some occurrences of

> > > ADRL*.  It looks like those are guarded by

> > > 605 # ifdef __thumb2__

> > > ...

> > > 608 # else

> > > 609   adrl  $Ktbl,K256

> > >

> > > So are these always built as thumb2?

> > >

> >

> > No need. The code in question is never assembled when built as part of

> > the kernel, only when building OpenSSL for user space. It appears

> > upstream has removed this already, but they have also been playing

> > weird games with the license blocks, so I'd prefer fixing the code

> > here rather than pulling the latest version.

>

> Oh, like mixing and matching licenses throughout the source itself?

> Or changing the source license?

>

> (I've always wondered if software licenses apply to an entire

> repository, or were per source file?  Could you mix and match licenses

> throughout your project?  Not sure why you'd do that; maybe to make

> some parts reusable for some other project.  But if you could, could

> you do different sections of a file under different licenses? Again,

> probably a worthless hypothetical; you could just split up your source

> files better).

>


https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/crypto/sha/asm/sha256-armv4.pl
Herbert Xu Sept. 25, 2020, 8:11 a.m. UTC | #5
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:14:16AM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Remove some occurrences of ADRL in the SHA NEON code adopted from the

> OpenSSL project.

> 

> I will leave it to the Clang folks to decide whether this needs to be

> backported and how far, but a Cc stable seems reasonable here.

> 

> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>

> Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>

> Cc: Peter Smith <Peter.Smith@arm.com>

> 

> Ard Biesheuvel (2):

>   crypto: arm/sha256-neon - avoid ADRL pseudo instruction

>   crypto: arm/sha512-neon - avoid ADRL pseudo instruction

> 

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha256-armv4.pl       | 4 ++--

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped | 4 ++--

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha512-armv4.pl       | 4 ++--

>  arch/arm/crypto/sha512-core.S_shipped | 4 ++--

>  4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)


All applied.  Thanks.
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt