linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/crypto: Raise priority of NEON crct10dif implementation

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: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:29:45 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/crypto: Raise priority of NEON crct10dif
 implementation

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 02:15:08PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:17:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 09:22:49PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > The NEON implementation of crctd10dif is registered with a priority of 100
> > > which is identical to that used by the generic C implementation. Raise the
> > > priority to 150, half way between the PMULL based implementation and the
> > > NEON one, so that it will be preferred over the generic implementation.

> > That second NEON should be PMULL, sorry.

> Sorry, I don't grok that now:

>   | half way between the PMULL based implementation and the PMULL one

> doesn't mean anything?

Yes, one of those PMULLs should say generic (I thought I'd sent a
followup saying that, sorry).

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)