On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 05:16, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 01:50:05PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > > On 11/12/22 06:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 23:29, Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11/9/22 2:05 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 04:52, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 10:50:48AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While rebasing my patches onto 6.1-rc4, I noticed my aesni for ccm(aes) patch didn't apply cleanly, > > > > > > > and I found this patch described below is applied now. Does this upstream patch mean that aesni is already > > > > > > > supported upstream now? Or is it specific to whatever xctr is? If so, > > > > > > > any chance the patch is wanted upstream now? > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAICS the xctr patch has nothing to do with what you were trying > > > > > > to achieve with wireless. My objection still stands with regards > > > > > > to wireless, we should patch wireless to use the async crypto > > > > > > interface and not hack around it in the Crypto API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. Those are just add/add conflicts because both patches > > > > > introduce new code into the same set of files. The resolution is > > > > > generally to keep both sides. > > > > > > > > > > As for Herbert's objection: I will note here that in the meantime, > > > > > arm64 now has gotten rid of the scalar fallbacks entirely in AEAD and > > > > > skipcher implementations, because those are only callable in task or > > > > > softirq context, and the arm64 SIMD wrappers now disable softirq > > > > > processing. This means that the condition that results in the fallback > > > > > being needed can no longer occur, making the SIMD helper dead code on > > > > > arm64. > > > > > > > > > > I suppose we might do the same thing on x86, but since the kernel mode > > > > > SIMD handling is highly arch specific, you'd really need to raise this > > > > > with the x86 maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Ard, > > > > > > > > Could you please review the attached patch to make sure I merged it properly? My concern > > > > is the cleanup section and/or some problems I might have introduced related to the similarly > > > > named code that was added upstream. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the logic is quite right, although it rarely matter. > > > > > > I've pushed my version here - it invokes the static call for CTR so it > > > will use the faster AVX version if the CPU supports it. > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ardb/linux.git/log/?h=aesni-ccm-v6.1 > > > > Hello Ard, > > > > It looks like something changed again in the intel-aesni logic for 6.6 kernel. I was able to do a small > > change to the patch to get it to compile, but the kernel crashes when I bring up a wlan port in > > 6.6. When I remove the aesni patch, the station comes up without crashing. The aesni patch worked > > fine in 6.5 as far as I can tell. > > > > I'm attaching my slightly modified version of the patch you sent previous. If you have time to > > investigate this it would be much appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > Ben > > If this patch is useful, shouldn't it be upstreamed? > It was rejected by Herbert on the basis that the wireless stack should be converted to use the async API instead.
