Re: stable request

Ard Biesheuvel
2021-03-18T17:46:07Z

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 18:13, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 17:42, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > >On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 14:03, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >> What about anything older than 5.10? Looks like it's needed there too?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes, 4.19 and 5.4 should probably get this too. They should apply with
> > >minimal effort, afaict. The only conflicting change is
> > >34fdce6981b96920ced4e0ee56e9db3fb03a33f0, which changed
> > >
> > >--- a/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S
> > >+++ b/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S
> > >@@ -2758,7 +2758,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(aesni_xts_crypt8)
> > > pxor INC, STATE4
> > > movdqu IV, 0x30(OUTP)
> > >
> > >- CALL_NOSPEC %r11
> > >+ CALL_NOSPEC r11
> > >
> > > movdqu 0x00(OUTP), INC
> > > pxor INC, STATE1
> > >@@ -2803,7 +2803,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(aesni_xts_crypt8)
> > > _aesni_gf128mul_x_ble()
> > > movups IV, (IVP)
> > >
> > >- CALL_NOSPEC %r11
> > >+ CALL_NOSPEC r11
> > >
> > > movdqu 0x40(OUTP), INC
> > > pxor INC, STATE1
> > >
> > >but those CALL_NOSPEC calls are being removed by this patch anyway, so
> > >that shouldn't matter.
> >
> > Hm, I'm seeing a lot more conflicts on 5.4 that I'm not too comfortable
> > with resolving.
> >
> > I should be taking just these two, right?
> >
> > 032d049ea0f4 ("crypto: aesni - Use TEST %reg,%reg instead of CMP $0,%reg")
> > 86ad60a65f29 ("crypto: x86/aes-ni-xts - use direct calls to and 4-way stride")
> >
>
> I'll take a look into this, and send separate 5.4 and 4.19 backports
> if feasible, or forget about it otherwise.

v5.4 was straight-forward but v4.19 looks a bit more complicated, and
given that this only affects performance, I am not going to bother
unless anyone specifically asks for it.