linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/21] lib/crc: Switch ARM and arm64 to 'ksimd' scoped guard API

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

Message-ID: <20251031134909.00006bf3@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 13:49:09 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>
CC: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	<ebiggers@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/21] lib/crc: Switch ARM and arm64 to 'ksimd'
 scoped guard API

On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:39:07 +0100
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com> wrote:

> From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> 
> Before modifying the prototypes of kernel_neon_begin() and
> kernel_neon_end() to accommodate kernel mode FP/SIMD state buffers
> allocated on the stack, move arm64 to the new 'ksimd' scoped guard API,
> which encapsulates the calls to those functions.
> 
> For symmetry, do the same for 32-bit ARM too.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> ---
>  lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h   | 16 +++++-----------
>  lib/crc/arm/crc32.h        | 11 ++++-------
>  lib/crc/arm64/crc-t10dif.h | 16 +++++-----------
>  lib/crc/arm64/crc32.h      | 16 ++++++----------
>  4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h b/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h
> index 63441de5e3f1..aaeeab0defb5 100644
> --- a/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h
> +++ b/lib/crc/arm/crc-t10dif.h

>  static __ro_after_init DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(have_neon);
> @@ -20,21 +19,16 @@ asmlinkage void crc_t10dif_pmull8(u16 init_crc, const u8 *buf, size_t len,
>  static inline u16 crc_t10dif_arch(u16 crc, const u8 *data, size_t length)
>  {
>  	if (length >= CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE) {
> -		if (static_branch_likely(&have_pmull)) {
> -			if (likely(may_use_simd())) {
> -				kernel_neon_begin();
> -				crc = crc_t10dif_pmull64(crc, data, length);
> -				kernel_neon_end();
> -				return crc;
> -			}
> +		if (static_branch_likely(&have_pmull) && likely(may_use_simd())) {
> +			scoped_ksimd()
> +				return crc_t10dif_pmull64(crc, data, length);

>  		} else if (length > CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE &&
>  			   static_branch_likely(&have_neon) &&
>  			   likely(may_use_simd())) {

I briefly thought this was a functional change but it's not because
of may_use_simd() being something that isn't going to change between
the two evaluations.  

Would it hurt at all to pull that up to be
	if (length >= CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE && likely(may_use_simd())) {
		if (static_branch_likely(&have_pmull)) {
			scoped_ksimd()
				return crc_t10dif_pmull64(crc, data, length);

 		} else if (length > CRC_T10DIF_PMULL_CHUNK_SIZE &&
 			   static_branch_likely(&have_neon)) {
		...

?