[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170915210629.p5tv42za4ux7s2sy@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 23:06:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli@...ux.intel.com>,
Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@....fi>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] x86/crypto: Fix RBP usage in several crypto .S
files
* Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 07:34:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Josh,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 05:33:03PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > > And here's v2 of the sha512-avx2 patch. It should hopefully gain back
> > > > most of the performance lost by v1.
> > > >
> > > > From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] x86/crypto: Fix RBP usage in sha512-avx2-asm.S
> > > >
> > > > Using RBP as a temporary register breaks frame pointer convention and
> > > > breaks stack traces when unwinding from an interrupt in the crypto code.
> > > >
> > > > Mix things up a little bit to get rid of the RBP usage, without
> > > > destroying performance. Use RDI instead of RBP for the TBL pointer.
> > > > That will clobber CTX, so save CTX on the stack and use RDI as CTX
> > > > before it gets clobbered, and R12 as CTX after it gets clobbered.
> > > >
> > > > Also remove the unused y4 variable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I tested the v2 patches for both sha256-avx2 and sha512-avx2 on Skylake. They
> > > both pass the crypto self-tests, and there was no noticable performance
> > > difference compared to the unpatched versions. Thanks!
> >
> > Cool, thanks for review and the testing! Can we add your Tested-by + Acked-by tags
> > to the patches?
> >
>
> Yes, that's fine for all the patches in the series.
>
> Will these patches go in through the crypto tree or through the x86 tree?
Indeed, I suspect they should go through the crypto tree, these fixes are
independent, they don't depend on anything in the x86 tree.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists