On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 18:13, Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 17:42, Sasha Levin <sas...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > >On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 14:03, Sasha Levin <sas...@kernel.org> wrote: > > >> What about anything older than 5.10? Looks like it's needed there too? > > >> > > > > > >Yes, 4.19 and 5.4 should probably get this too. They should apply with > > >minimal effort, afaict. The only conflicting change is > > >34fdce6981b96920ced4e0ee56e9db3fb03a33f0, which changed > > > > > >--- a/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S > > >+++ b/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S > > >@@ -2758,7 +2758,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(aesni_xts_crypt8) > > > pxor INC, STATE4 > > > movdqu IV, 0x30(OUTP) > > > > > >- CALL_NOSPEC %r11 > > >+ CALL_NOSPEC r11 > > > > > > movdqu 0x00(OUTP), INC > > > pxor INC, STATE1 > > >@@ -2803,7 +2803,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(aesni_xts_crypt8) > > > _aesni_gf128mul_x_ble() > > > movups IV, (IVP) > > > > > >- CALL_NOSPEC %r11 > > >+ CALL_NOSPEC r11 > > > > > > movdqu 0x40(OUTP), INC > > > pxor INC, STATE1 > > > > > >but those CALL_NOSPEC calls are being removed by this patch anyway, so > > >that shouldn't matter. > > > > Hm, I'm seeing a lot more conflicts on 5.4 that I'm not too comfortable > > with resolving. > > > > I should be taking just these two, right? > > > > 032d049ea0f4 ("crypto: aesni - Use TEST %reg,%reg instead of CMP > > $0,%reg") > > 86ad60a65f29 ("crypto: x86/aes-ni-xts - use direct calls to and > > 4-way stride") > > > > I'll take a look into this, and send separate 5.4 and 4.19 backports > if feasible, or forget about it otherwise.
v5.4 was straight-forward but v4.19 looks a bit more complicated, and given that this only affects performance, I am not going to bother unless anyone specifically asks for it.