On 11/9/22 2:05 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 04:52, Herbert Xu 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. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com