On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:59:31PM -0500, Nathan Huckleberry wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 7:13 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 05:28:12PM +0000, Nathan Huckleberry wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S b/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S > > > index 363699dd7220..ce17fe630150 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S > > > +++ b/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S > > > @@ -2821,6 +2821,76 @@ SYM_FUNC_END(aesni_ctr_enc) > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > +#ifdef __x86_64__ > > > +/* > > > + * void aesni_xctr_enc(struct crypto_aes_ctx *ctx, const u8 *dst, u8 *src, > > > + * size_t len, u8 *iv, int byte_ctr) > > > + */ > > > +SYM_FUNC_START(aesni_xctr_enc) > > > + FRAME_BEGIN > > > + cmp $16, LEN > > > + jb .Lxctr_ret > > > + shr $4, %arg6 > > > + movq %arg6, CTR > > > + mov 480(KEYP), KLEN > > > + movups (IVP), IV > > > + cmp $64, LEN > > > + jb .Lxctr_enc_loop1 > > > +.align 4 > > > +.Lxctr_enc_loop4: > > > + movaps IV, STATE1 > > > + vpaddq ONE(%rip), CTR, CTR > > > + vpxor CTR, STATE1, STATE1 > > > + movups (INP), IN1 > > > + movaps IV, STATE2 > > > + vpaddq ONE(%rip), CTR, CTR > > > + vpxor CTR, STATE2, STATE2 > > > + movups 0x10(INP), IN2 > > > + movaps IV, STATE3 > > > + vpaddq ONE(%rip), CTR, CTR > > > + vpxor CTR, STATE3, STATE3 > > > + movups 0x20(INP), IN3 > > > + movaps IV, STATE4 > > > + vpaddq ONE(%rip), CTR, CTR > > > + vpxor CTR, STATE4, STATE4 > > > + movups 0x30(INP), IN4 > > > + call _aesni_enc4 > > > + pxor IN1, STATE1 > > > + movups STATE1, (OUTP) > > > + pxor IN2, STATE2 > > > + movups STATE2, 0x10(OUTP) > > > + pxor IN3, STATE3 > > > + movups STATE3, 0x20(OUTP) > > > + pxor IN4, STATE4 > > > + movups STATE4, 0x30(OUTP) > > > + sub $64, LEN > > > + add $64, INP > > > + add $64, OUTP > > > + cmp $64, LEN > > > + jge .Lxctr_enc_loop4 > > > + cmp $16, LEN > > > + jb .Lxctr_ret > > > +.align 4 > > > +.Lxctr_enc_loop1: > > > + movaps IV, STATE > > > + vpaddq ONE(%rip), CTR, CTR > > > + vpxor CTR, STATE1, STATE1 > > > + movups (INP), IN > > > + call _aesni_enc1 > > > + pxor IN, STATE > > > + movups STATE, (OUTP) > > > + sub $16, LEN > > > + add $16, INP > > > + add $16, OUTP > > > + cmp $16, LEN > > > + jge .Lxctr_enc_loop1 > > > +.Lxctr_ret: > > > + FRAME_END > > > + RET > > > +SYM_FUNC_END(aesni_xctr_enc) > > > + > > > +#endif > > > > Sorry, I missed this file. This is the non-AVX version, right? That means that > > AVX instructions, i.e. basically anything instruction starting with "v", can't > > be used here. So the above isn't going to work. (There might be a way to test > > this with QEMU; maybe --cpu-type=Nehalem without --enable-kvm?) > > > > You could rewrite this without using AVX instructions. However, polyval-clmulni > > is broken in the same way; it uses AVX instructions without checking whether > > they are available. But your patchset doesn't aim to provide a non-AVX polyval > > implementation at all. So even if you got the non-AVX XCTR working, it wouldn't > > be paired with an accelerated polyval. > > > > So I think you should just not provide non-AVX versions for now. That would > > mean: > > > > 1.) Drop the change to aesni-intel_asm.S > > 2.) Don't register the AES XCTR algorithm unless AVX is available > > (in addition to AES-NI) > > Is there a preferred way to conditionally register xctr? It looks like > aesni-intel_glue.c registers a default implementation for all the > algorithms in the array, then better versions are enabled depending on > cpu features. Should I remove xctr from the list of other algorithms > and register it separately? > Yes, it will need to be removed from the aesni_skciphers array. I don't see any other algorithms in that file that are conditional on AES-NI && AVX, so it will have to go by itself. - Eric
