On Nov 22, 2023, at 07:51, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 09:03:33PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: >> >> It would be nice to use a real assembler, so that people won't have to worry >> about potential mistakes or inconsistencies in the perl-based "assembler". Also >> keep in mind that if we allow people to compile this code without the real >> assembler support from the beginning, it might end up staying that way for quite >> a while in order to avoid breaking the build for people. >> >> Ultimately it's up to you though; I think that you and others who have been >> working on RISC-V crypto can make the best decision about what to do here. I >> also don't want this patchset to be delayed waiting for other projects, so maybe >> that indeed means the perl-based "assembler" needs to be used for now. > > Just wanted to bump up this discussion again. In binutils, the vector crypto > v1.0.0 support was released 4 months ago in 2.41. See the NEWS file at > https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob_plain;f=binutils/NEWS;hb=refs/heads/binutils-2_41-branch > > * The RISC-V port now supports the following new standard extensions: > - Zicond (conditional zero instructions) > - Zfa (additional floating-point instructions) > - Zvbb, Zvbc, Zvkg, Zvkned, Zvknh[ab], Zvksed, Zvksh, Zvkn, Zvknc, Zvkng, > Zvks, Zvksc, Zvkg, Zvkt (vector crypto instructions) > > That's every extension listed in the vector crypto v1.0.0 specification > (https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/releases/download/v1.0.0/riscv-crypto-spec-vector.pdf). It doesn't fit all v1.0 spec. The `Zvkb` is missed in binutils. It's the subset of `Zvbb`. We needs some extra works if user just try to use `Zvkb`. https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/blob/main/doc/vector/riscv-crypto-vector-zvkb.adoc Some crypto algorithms are already checking for `Zvkb` instead of `Zvbb`. > LLVM still has the vector crypto extensions marked as "experimental" extensions. > However, there is an open pull request to mark them non-experimental: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69000 > > Could we just go ahead and remove riscv.pm, develop with binutils for now, and > prioritize getting the LLVM support finished? Yes, we could. But we need to handle the extensions checking for toolchains like: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b6fcdb191e36f82336f9b5e126d51c02e7323480 I could do that, but I think I need some times to test the builds. And it will introduce more dependency patch which is not related to actual crypto algorithms and the gluing code in kernel. I will send another patch for toolchain part after the v2 patch. And I am working for v2 patch with your new review comments. The v2 will still use `perlasm`. And we could move this discussion to this thread. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231025183644.8735-1-jerry.shih@xxxxxxxxxx/ -Jerry
