On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:08 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 03:53, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > One thing I noticed was that if I grep for `adrl` with all of the > > above applied within arch/arm, I do still see two more instances: > > > > crypto/sha256-armv4.pl > > 609: adrl $Ktbl,K256 > > > > crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped > > 2679: adrl r3,K256 > > > > Maybe those can be fixed up in patch 01/02 of this series for a v2? I > > guess in this cover letter, you did specify *some occurrences of > > ADRL*. It looks like those are guarded by > > 605 # ifdef __thumb2__ > > ... > > 608 # else > > 609 adrl $Ktbl,K256 > > > > So are these always built as thumb2? > > > > No need. The code in question is never assembled when built as part of > the kernel, only when building OpenSSL for user space. It appears > upstream has removed this already, but they have also been playing > weird games with the license blocks, so I'd prefer fixing the code > here rather than pulling the latest version. Oh, like mixing and matching licenses throughout the source itself? Or changing the source license? (I've always wondered if software licenses apply to an entire repository, or were per source file? Could you mix and match licenses throughout your project? Not sure why you'd do that; maybe to make some parts reusable for some other project. But if you could, could you do different sections of a file under different licenses? Again, probably a worthless hypothetical; you could just split up your source files better). -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
