lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/13] x86/crypto/asm: objtool support
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:46:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:29:13AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Standardize the crypto asm to make it resemble compiler-generated code,
> > so that objtool can understand it.
> >
> > This magically enables ORC unwinding from crypto code. It also fixes
> > the last known remaining objtool warnings on vmlinux.o, for LTO and
> > more.
> >
> > Josh Poimboeuf (13):
> > objtool: Support asm jump tables
> > x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Remove unused macros
> > x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Fix register usage comments
> > x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Standardize stack alignment prologue
> > x86/crypto/camellia-aesni-avx2: Unconditionally allocate stack buffer
> > x86/crypto/crc32c-pcl-intel: Standardize jump table
> > x86/crypto/sha_ni: Standardize stack alignment prologue
> > x86/crypto/sha1_avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
> > x86/crypto/sha256-avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
> > x86/crypto/sha512-avx: Standardize stack alignment prologue
> > x86/crypto/sha512-avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
> > x86/crypto/sha512-ssse3: Standardize stack alignment prologue
> > x86/crypto: Enable objtool in crypto code
> >
> > arch/x86/crypto/Makefile | 2 -
> > arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx-x86_64.S | 28 +++++--------
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia-aesni-avx2-asm_64.S | 5 +--
> > arch/x86/crypto/crc32c-pcl-intel-asm_64.S | 7 +---
> > arch/x86/crypto/sha1_avx2_x86_64_asm.S | 8 ++--
> > arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ni_asm.S | 8 ++--
> > arch/x86/crypto/sha256-avx2-asm.S | 13 +++---
> > arch/x86/crypto/sha512-avx-asm.S | 41 +++++++++----------
> > arch/x86/crypto/sha512-avx2-asm.S | 42 ++++++++++----------
> > arch/x86/crypto/sha512-ssse3-asm.S | 41 +++++++++----------
> > tools/objtool/check.c | 14 ++++++-
> > 11 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-)
>
> One nit, there's lots and lots of:
>
> mov %rbp, %rsp
> pop %rbp
>
> and we have this 'leave' instruction that does exactly that, should we
> be using it?

I'd considered that, but LEAVE is more cryptic (no pun intended). This
code often has "surprises", so I prefer the readability of the more
explicit instructions.

> Otherwise:
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

Thanks.

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-25 14:35    [W:0.160 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site