linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] lib/crypto: x86/sha1: PHE Extensions optimized SHA1 transform function

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]

Message-ID: <2c5d1b26-8e12-4a93-8525-7fc7b9147bd7@zhaoxin.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:47:15 +0800
From: AlanSong-oc <AlanSong-oc@...oxin.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
CC: <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <Jason@...c4.com>, <ardb@...nel.org>,
	<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<CobeChen@...oxin.com>, <TonyWWang-oc@...oxin.com>, <YunShen@...oxin.com>,
	<GeorgeXue@...oxin.com>, <LeoLiu-oc@...oxin.com>, <HansHu@...oxin.com>,
	<x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] lib/crypto: x86/sha1: PHE Extensions optimized
 SHA1 transform function

On 1/13/2026 3:34 AM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 05:12:01PM +0800, AlanSong-oc wrote:
>>> Is it supported in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes?  Your patch doesn't
>>> check for CONFIG_64BIT.  Should it?  New optimized assembly code
>>> generally should be 64-bit only.
>>
>> The XSHA1 and XSHA256 are supported in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes.
>> Since newly optimized assembly code is typically 64-bit only, and XSHA1
>> and XSHA256 fully support 64-bit mode, an explicit CONFIG_64BIT check
>> should not required.
> 
> Right, all the x86-optimized SHA-1 and SHA-256 code is already 64-bit
> specific, due to CONFIG_CRYPTO_LIB_SHA1_ARCH and
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_LIB_SHA256_ARCH being enabled only when CONFIG_x86_64=y.
> So there's no need to check for 64-bit again.
> 
>>> What is the difference between X86_FEATURE_PHE and X86_FEATURE_PHE_EN,
>>> and why are both needed?
>>
>> The X86_FEATURE_PHE indicates the presence of the XSHA1 and XSHA256
>> instructions, whereas the X86_FEATURE_PHE_EN indicates that these
>> instructions are enabled for normal use.
> 
> I still don't understand the difference.
> 
> If you look at the other CPU feature flags, like X86_FEATURE_SHA_NI for
> example, there's just a single flag for the feature.  We don't have
> X86_FEATURE_SHA_NI and X86_FEATURE_SHA_NI_EN.  If the CPU supports the
> feature but the kernel decides it can't or shouldn't be used for
> whatever reason, the kernel just doesn't set the flag.  There's no
> separate flag that tracks the CPU support independently.
> 
> Why can't the PHE flag work the same way?

Unlike most x86 CPU features, the PHE extension uses two bits to
describe a single feature: a present bit and an enable bit. On Zhaoxin
processors, these two bits are always identical. Therefore, in the next
revision of this patch, I will only check X86_FEATURE_PHE_EN, as with
other CPU support checks. Thanks for the suggestion.

Best Regards
AlanSong-oc