Re: [PATCH 00/13] x86/crypto/asm: objtool support
From: Josh Poimboeuf
Date: Thu Feb 25 2021 - 08:32:42 EST
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:46:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:29:13AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> Standardize the crypto asm to make it resemble compiler-generated code,
>
> so that objtool can understand it.
>
>
>
> This magically enables ORC unwinding from crypto code. It also fixes
>
> the last known remaining objtool warnings on vmlinux.o, for LTO and
>
> more.
>
>
>
> Josh Poimboeuf (13):
>
> objtool: Support asm jump tables
>
> x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Remove unused macros
>
> x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Fix register usage comments
>
> x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>
> x86/crypto/camellia-aesni-avx2: Unconditionally allocate stack buffer
>
> x86/crypto/crc32c-pcl-intel: Standardize jump table
>
> x86/crypto/sha_ni: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>
> x86/crypto/sha1_avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>
> x86/crypto/sha256-avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>
> x86/crypto/sha512-avx: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>
> x86/crypto/sha512-avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>
> x86/crypto/sha512-ssse3: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>
> x86/crypto: Enable objtool in crypto code
>
>
>
> arch/x86/crypto/Makefile | 2 -
>
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx-x86_64.S | 28 +++++--------
>
> arch/x86/crypto/camellia-aesni-avx2-asm_64.S | 5 +--
>
> arch/x86/crypto/crc32c-pcl-intel-asm_64.S | 7 +---
>
> arch/x86/crypto/sha1_avx2_x86_64_asm.S | 8 ++--
>
> arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ni_asm.S | 8 ++--
>
> arch/x86/crypto/sha256-avx2-asm.S | 13 +++---
>
> arch/x86/crypto/sha512-avx-asm.S | 41 +++++++++----------
>
> arch/x86/crypto/sha512-avx2-asm.S | 42 ++++++++++----------
>
> arch/x86/crypto/sha512-ssse3-asm.S | 41 +++++++++----------
>
> tools/objtool/check.c | 14 ++++++-
>
> 11 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-)
>
>
One nit, there's lots and lots of:
>
>
mov %rbp, %rsp
>
pop %rbp
>
>
and we have this 'leave' instruction that does exactly that, should we
>
be using it?
I'd considered that, but LEAVE is more cryptic (no pun intended). This
code often has "surprises", so I prefer the readability of the more
explicit instructions.
>
Otherwise:
>
>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
--
Josh