lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20170915053431.xizfyla7lobrwqn3@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:34:31 +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: > 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? Thanks, Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists