[PATCH] crypto: arm64 - Drop asm fallback macros for older binutils
Eric Biggers
ebiggers at kernel.org
Thu May 15 12:03:50 PDT 2025
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 11:52:54AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 04:27:03PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/crypto/sha512-ce-core.S b/arch/arm64/crypto/sha512-ce-core.S
> > index 91ef68b15fcc..deb2469ab631 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/crypto/sha512-ce-core.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/crypto/sha512-ce-core.S
> > @@ -12,26 +12,7 @@
> > #include <linux/linkage.h>
> > #include <asm/assembler.h>
> >
> > - .irp b,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19
> > - .set .Lq\b, \b
> > - .set .Lv\b\().2d, \b
> > - .endr
> > -
> > - .macro sha512h, rd, rn, rm
> > - .inst 0xce608000 | .L\rd | (.L\rn << 5) | (.L\rm << 16)
> > - .endm
> > -
> > - .macro sha512h2, rd, rn, rm
> > - .inst 0xce608400 | .L\rd | (.L\rn << 5) | (.L\rm << 16)
> > - .endm
> > -
> > - .macro sha512su0, rd, rn
> > - .inst 0xcec08000 | .L\rd | (.L\rn << 5)
> > - .endm
> > -
> > - .macro sha512su1, rd, rn, rm
> > - .inst 0xce608800 | .L\rd | (.L\rn << 5) | (.L\rm << 16)
> > - .endm
> > + .arch armv8-a+sha3
>
> This looked like a mistake: SHA-512 is part of SHA-2, not SHA-3. However, the
> current versions of binutils and clang do indeed put it under sha3. There
> should be a comment that mentions this unfortunate quirk.
>
> However, there's also the following commit which went into binutils 2.43:
>
> commit 0aac62aa3256719c37be9e0ce6af8b190f45c928
> Author: Andrew Carlotti <andrew.carlotti at arm.com>
> Date: Fri Jan 19 13:01:40 2024 +0000
>
> aarch64: move SHA512 instructions to +sha3
>
> SHA512 instructions were added to the architecture at the same time as SHA3
> instructions, but later than the SHA1 and SHA256 instructions. Furthermore,
> implementations must support either both or neither of the SHA512 and SHA3
> instruction sets. However, SHA512 instructions were originally (and
> incorrectly) added to Binutils under the +sha2 flag.
>
> This patch moves SHA512 instructions under the +sha3 flag, which matches the
> architecture constraints and existing GCC and LLVM behaviour.
>
> So probably we need ".arch armv8-a+sha2+sha3" to support binutils 2.30 through
> 2.42, as well as clang and the latest version of binutils? (I didn't test it
> yet, but it seems likely...)
I see there's also a similar quirk where "sm4" enables the SM3 instructions.
The use of that in sm3-ce-core.S could use a comment as well...
Fortunately at least in that case it looks like the instructions were always
under "sm4" in both binutils and clang.
- Eric
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list