On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 22:08, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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). > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/master/crypto/sha/asm/sha256-armv4.pl
