Re: [PATCH 00/13] x86/crypto/asm: objtool support

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 10:29:13AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Standardize the crypto asm to make it resemble compiler-generated code,
> so that objtool can understand it.
> 
> This magically enables ORC unwinding from crypto code.  It also fixes
> the last known remaining objtool warnings on vmlinux.o, for LTO and
> more.
> 
> Josh Poimboeuf (13):
>   objtool: Support asm jump tables
>   x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Remove unused macros
>   x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Fix register usage comments
>   x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>   x86/crypto/camellia-aesni-avx2: Unconditionally allocate stack buffer
>   x86/crypto/crc32c-pcl-intel: Standardize jump table
>   x86/crypto/sha_ni: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>   x86/crypto/sha1_avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>   x86/crypto/sha256-avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>   x86/crypto/sha512-avx: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>   x86/crypto/sha512-avx2: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>   x86/crypto/sha512-ssse3: Standardize stack alignment prologue
>   x86/crypto: Enable objtool in crypto code
> 
>  arch/x86/crypto/Makefile                     |  2 -
>  arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_avx-x86_64.S     | 28 +++++--------
>  arch/x86/crypto/camellia-aesni-avx2-asm_64.S |  5 +--
>  arch/x86/crypto/crc32c-pcl-intel-asm_64.S    |  7 +---
>  arch/x86/crypto/sha1_avx2_x86_64_asm.S       |  8 ++--
>  arch/x86/crypto/sha1_ni_asm.S                |  8 ++--
>  arch/x86/crypto/sha256-avx2-asm.S            | 13 +++---
>  arch/x86/crypto/sha512-avx-asm.S             | 41 +++++++++----------
>  arch/x86/crypto/sha512-avx2-asm.S            | 42 ++++++++++----------
>  arch/x86/crypto/sha512-ssse3-asm.S           | 41 +++++++++----------
>  tools/objtool/check.c                        | 14 ++++++-
>  11 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 111 deletions(-)

One nit, there's lots and lots of:

	mov %rbp, %rsp
	pop %rbp

and we have this 'leave' instruction that does exactly that, should we
be using it?

Otherwise:

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>