linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: crypto: Fix CRC32 code

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 12:03:09 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Maciej W . Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: crypto: Fix CRC32 code

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 05:42:00PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Commit 67512a8cf5a7 ("MIPS: Avoid macro redefinitions") changed how the
> MIPS register macros were defined, in order to allow the code to compile
> under LLVM/Clang.
> 
> The MIPS CRC32 code however wasn't updated accordingly, causing a build
> bug when using a MIPS32r6 toolchain without CRC support.
> 
> Update the CRC32 code to use the macros correctly, to fix the build
> failures.
> 
> Fixes: 67512a8cf5a7 ("MIPS: Avoid macro redefinitions")
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/mips/crypto/crc32-mips.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]