[PATCHv2] arm: crypto: Add optimized SHA-256/224
ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org
Tue Mar 24 07:46:58 PDT 2015
On 24 March 2015 at 14:06, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 24 March 2015 at 14:05, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
> <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com> wrote:
>> >> + '&eor ($t0,$t0,$a,"ror#".($Sigma0-$Sigma0))', # Sigma0(a)
>>> >> + '&add ($h,$h,$t1)', # h+=Ch(e,f,g)
>>> >> + '&ldr ($t1,sprintf "[sp,#%d]",4*(($j+1)&15)) if (($j&15)!=15);'.
>>> >> + '&ldr ($t1,"[$Ktbl]") if ($j==15);'.
>>> >> + '&ldr ($t1,"[sp,#64]") if ($j==31)',
>>> >> + '&and ($t3,$t3,$t2)', # (b^c)&=(a^b)
>>> >> + '&add ($d,$d,$h)', # d+=h
>>> >> + '&add ($h,$h,$t0,"ror#$Sigma0");'. # h+=Sigma0(a)
>>> >> + '&eor ($t3,$t3,$b)', # Maj(a,b,c)
>>> >> + '$j++; unshift(@V,pop(@V)); ($t2,$t3)=($t3,$t2);'
>>> >> + )
>>> >> +}
>>> >> +
>>> >> +$code.=<<___;
>>> >> +#if __ARM_MAX_ARCH__>=7
>>> > this will be compile on armv4 but gcc will not allow it
>>> > we need to drop the neon code for older non v7 build
>>> The .arch and .fpu declarations ensure that it can be built regardless
>>> of the platform you are compiling for, unless you have a really old
>> I known but does not work for me
>>> The glue code ensures that the module can only be loaded if HWCAP_NEON is set.
>>> Did you get errors trying to build it?
>> yes I do
>> I use
>> arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc (Sourcery CodeBench Lite 2014.05-29) 4.8.3 20140320
>> Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
>> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>> so it's not that old
> Could you share the error log please?
OK, I spotted one issue with this code:
arch/arm/crypto/sha256-core.S: Assembler messages:
arch/arm/crypto/sha256-core.S:1847: Error: invalid constant (ffffefb0)
This is caused by the fact that, when building the integer-only code
for an older architecture, the conditional compilation produces a
slightly bigger preceding function, and the symbol K256 is out of
range for the adr instruction.
@Jean-Christophe: is that the same problem that you hit?
@Andy: I propose we do something similar as in the bsaes code:
#define adrl adr
and replace the offending line with
@Herbert: we will need to respin this, so please don't pull it yet.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel