On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:58 AM Thomas BOURGOIN <thomas.bourgoin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Did you run your test only with the patch adding the support for > STM32MP13 or did you try the whole patch set ? Both, actually. > The error is on the test vector number 4, which is an HASH of 64 bytes > which is exactly the size of a blcok for SHA1. > > Did you try to run the test for SHA256 ? (I guess you will see the same > error on test vector 4) Yes... I posted a log with both SHA256 and SHA1. > I found a typo in the number of CSR to save/restore for the SHA1 and > SHA256 algorithm. It should be 38 instead of 22. > Tell me if it fixes the regression. Yes this fixes the bug and the tests pass fine :) I wonder why SHA1 was affected? Same codepath? > It could be possible to divide the patch in 2 (one patch rework > preparing MP13 and one patch with the new algorithm) but for the > upstream I do not know if it is relevant to have 2 patches instead of one. The major point of splitting patches to "one technical step" is to be able to do fine-grained git bisect to find bugs such as this one :D But admittedly the defintion of "techical step" is a bit fuzzy. Yours, Linus Walleij
