On 22/09/2022 18.35, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 5:55 PM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 22/09/2022 17.38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <ja...@zx2c4.com>
In order to fully support MSA_EXT_5, we have to support the SHA-512
special instructions. So implement those.
The implementation began as something TweetNacl-like, and then was
adjusted to be useful here. It's not very beautiful, but it is quite
short and compact, which is what we're going for.
...
@@ -52,6 +278,9 @@ uint32_t HELPER(msa)(CPUS390XState *env, uint32_t r1,
uint32_t r2, uint32_t r3,
cpu_stb_data_ra(env, param_addr, subfunc[i], ra);
}
break;
+ case 3: /* CPACF_*_SHA_512 */
+ return cpacf_sha512(env, ra, env->regs[1], &env->regs[r2],
+ &env->regs[r2 + 1], type);
I have to say that I liked Jason's v8 better here. Code 3 is also used for
other instructions with completely different meaning, e.g. PCKMO uses 3 for
TDEA-192 ... so having the "type" check here made more sense.
(meta comment: maybe we should split up the msa function and stop using just
one function for all crypto/rng related instructions? ... but that's of
course something for a different patch series)
Maybe just commit my v8, and then David's changes can layer on top as
follow ups? Checking len alignment, for example, is a separate patch
from the rest.
Yes, let's do that now - that will also later help to distinguish who did
what part of the code.
Thomas
