From: Joachim Eastwood Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/sha1: use the git implementation of SHA-1 Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 22:48:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1312595187-3265-1-git-send-email-msb@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andreas Schwab , Nicolas Pitre , Mandeep Singh Baines , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ramsay Jones , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from mail-vx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:56639 "EHLO mail-vx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755105Ab1HGUsE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:48:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> ARM has its own implementation of sha_transform in arch/arm/lib/sha1= =2ES, >> which assumes SHA_WORKSPACE_WORDS is 80. > > Well, that certainly explains it. > > I wonder if that thing is worth it. It seems to be based on the bad > slow version of sha1, so I suspect that the biggest advantage of it > may the byte-swapping being done more efficiently. The ARM version of > "get_unaligned_be32()" is potentially pretty bad. > > Joachim, does it all work for you if you just remove 'sha1.o' from > lib-y in arch/arm/lib/Makefile? yes, this works. At least my board boots as normal. regards Joachim Eastwood > Nico (now with corrected email address): is that ARM-optimized asm > really worth it? Compared to the git C implementation? > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Linus >