[PATCH v2 0/8] crypto: ARM/arm64 - big endian fixes

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 19 October 2016 at 09:46, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:03:33AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:14:38PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > On 18 October 2016 at 12:49, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 07:15:12PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > >> As it turns out, none of the accelerated crypto routines under arch/arm64/crypto
>> > >> currently work, or have ever worked correctly when built for big endian. So this
>> > >> series fixes all of them. This v2 now includes a similar fix for 32-bit ARM as
>> > >> well, and an additional fix for XTS which escaped my attention before.
>> > >>
>> > >> Each of these patches carries a fixes tag, and could be backported to stable.
>> > >> However, for patches #1 and #5, the fixes tag denotes the oldest commit that the
>> > >> fix is compatible with, not the patch that introduced the algorithm.
>> > >
>> > > I think for future reference, the Fixes tag should denote the commit
>> > > that introduced the issue. An explicit Cc: stable tag would state how
>> > > far back it should be applied.
>> > >
>> >
>> > OK, that sounds reasonable.
>> >
>> > >> Ard Biesheuvel (8):
>> > >>   crypto: arm64/aes-ce - fix for big endian
>> > >>   crypto: arm64/ghash-ce - fix for big endian
>> > >>   crypto: arm64/sha1-ce - fix for big endian
>> > >>   crypto: arm64/sha2-ce - fix for big endian
>> > >>   crypto: arm64/aes-ccm-ce: fix for big endian
>> > >>   crypto: arm64/aes-neon - fix for big endian
>> > >>   crypto: arm64/aes-xts-ce: fix for big endian
>> > >>   crypto: arm/aes-ce - fix for big endian
>> > >
>> > > The changes look fine to me but I can't claim I fully understand these
>> > > algorithms. FWIW:
>> > >
>> > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
>> > >
>> > > (Will may pick them up for 4.9-rcX)
>> >
>> > Thanks, although I was kind of expecting Herbert to pick these up,
>> > given that #8 affects ARM not arm64.
>> >
>> > But if you (or Will) can pick up #1 to #7, that is also fine, then I
>> > can drop #8 into rmk's patch database.
>>
>> I was planning merging these for 4.10.  But I'm fine with them
>> going through the arm tree.  Let me know what you guys want to
>> do.
>
> I assumed you'd take them through crypto, as per usual, so I didn't
> queue anything in the arm64 tree.
>
> Ard -- were you planning to get these in for 4.9?
>

These are arguably bug fixes, but I spotted them by accident, they
weren't reported to me or anything. But it seems strange to add a cc
stable and then hold off until the next merge window.

In any case, I don't care deeply either way, as long as they get
merged in the end. I think it makes sense to keep them together (arm64
+ ARM), so Herbert's tree is a more natural route for them to take. I
will leave it up to Herbert whether they are sent onward as fixes or
as part of v4.10

Thanks,
Ard.