Hi,
On 10/6/20 7:33 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 11:43:14AM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 11:25:11AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 11:01:21AM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:27:48AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:48:54PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
The AES code uses a 'br x7' as part of a function called by
a macro. That branch needs a bti_j as a target. This results
in a panic as seen below. Instead of trying to replace the branch
target with a bti_jc, lets replace the indirect branch with a
bl/ret, bl sequence that can target the existing bti_c.
Bad mode in Synchronous Abort handler detected on CPU1, code 0x34000003 -- BTI
CPU: 1 PID: 265 Comm: cryptomgr_test Not tainted 5.8.11-300.fc33.aarch64 #1
pstate: 20400c05 (nzCv daif +PAN -UAO BTYPE=j-)
pc : aesbs_encrypt8+0x0/0x5f0 [aes_neon_bs]
lr : aesbs_xts_encrypt+0x48/0xe0 [aes_neon_bs]
sp : ffff80001052b730
aesbs_encrypt8+0x0/0x5f0 [aes_neon_bs]
__xts_crypt+0xb0/0x2dc [aes_neon_bs]
xts_encrypt+0x28/0x3c [aes_neon_bs]
crypto_skcipher_encrypt+0x50/0x84
simd_skcipher_encrypt+0xc8/0xe0
crypto_skcipher_encrypt+0x50/0x84
test_skcipher_vec_cfg+0x224/0x5f0
test_skcipher+0xbc/0x120
alg_test_skcipher+0xa0/0x1b0
alg_test+0x3dc/0x47c
cryptomgr_test+0x38/0x60
Fixes: commit 0e89640b640d ("crypto: arm64 - Use modern annotations for assembly functions")
nit: the "commit" string shouldn't be here, and I think the linux-next
scripts will yell at us if we don't remove it.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/crypto/aes-neonbs-core.S | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/crypto/aes-neonbs-core.S b/arch/arm64/crypto/aes-neonbs-core.S
index b357164379f6..32f53ebe5e2c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/crypto/aes-neonbs-core.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/crypto/aes-neonbs-core.S
@@ -788,7 +788,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START_LOCAL(__xts_crypt8)
0: mov bskey, x21
mov rounds, x22
- br x7
+ ret
Dang, replied on an old version.
Which I ignored (by default, when the kbuild test robot complains ;)).
Since this is logically a tail call, could we simply be using br x16 or
br x17 for this?
The architecture makes special provision for that so that the compiler
can generate tail-calls.
So a "br x16" is compatible with a bti_c landing pad. I think it makes
more sense to keep it as a tail call.
Just to be clear, I'm happy either way, but I thought it would make
sense to point this out.
I'd prefer the replacement with a br x16/17, it keeps the code pretty
much unchanged.
Jeremy, could you please respin this patch and give it a try?
Sounds like a plan.
I'm probably going to change the subject again, guess I will put a v3 on
it too. :)
