On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 17:42, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 14:03, Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org wrote:
What about anything older than 5.10? Looks like it's needed there too?
Yes, 4.19 and 5.4 should probably get this too. They should apply with minimal effort, afaict. The only conflicting change is 34fdce6981b96920ced4e0ee56e9db3fb03a33f0, which changed
--- a/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S @@ -2758,7 +2758,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(aesni_xts_crypt8) pxor INC, STATE4 movdqu IV, 0x30(OUTP)
CALL_NOSPEC %r11
CALL_NOSPEC r11 movdqu 0x00(OUTP), INC pxor INC, STATE1@@ -2803,7 +2803,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(aesni_xts_crypt8) _aesni_gf128mul_x_ble() movups IV, (IVP)
CALL_NOSPEC %r11
CALL_NOSPEC r11 movdqu 0x40(OUTP), INC pxor INC, STATE1but those CALL_NOSPEC calls are being removed by this patch anyway, so that shouldn't matter.
Hm, I'm seeing a lot more conflicts on 5.4 that I'm not too comfortable with resolving.
I should be taking just these two, right?
032d049ea0f4 ("crypto: aesni - Use TEST %reg,%reg instead of CMP $0,%reg") 86ad60a65f29 ("crypto: x86/aes-ni-xts - use direct calls to and 4-way stride")
I'll take a look into this, and send separate 5.4 and 4.19 backports if feasible, or forget about it otherwise.