Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230706073719.1156288-1-thomas.bourgoin@foss.st.com>
 <20230706073719.1156288-3-thomas.bourgoin@foss.st.com> <CACRpkdaHn8fhZtuhU4sXHK1xoxO3-xYg_Xb=3=bX8i-uJM9KDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a584c152-329e-9c79-ec62-795485302a55@foss.st.com>
In-Reply-To: <a584c152-329e-9c79-ec62-795485302a55@foss.st.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:56:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYStm_dxo-FMo4Kdw_Lm3iG+xppf7O5W6cxtoiRy1DOsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] crypto: stm32 - add new algorithms support
To:     Thomas BOURGOIN <thomas.bourgoin@foss.st.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@foss.st.com>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:58=E2=80=AFAM Thomas BOURGOIN
<thomas.bourgoin@foss.st.com> wrote:

> Did you run your test only with the patch adding the support for
> STM32MP13 or did you try the whole patch set ?

Both, actually.

> The error is on the test vector number 4, which is an HASH of 64 bytes
> which is exactly the size of a blcok for SHA1.
>
> Did you try to run the test for SHA256 ? (I guess you will see the same
> error on test vector 4)

Yes... I posted a log with both SHA256 and SHA1.

> I found a typo in the number of CSR to save/restore for the SHA1 and
> SHA256 algorithm. It should be 38 instead of 22.
> Tell me if it fixes the regression.

Yes this fixes the bug and the tests pass fine :)
I wonder why SHA1 was affected? Same codepath?

> It could be possible to divide the patch in 2 (one patch rework
> preparing MP13 and one patch with the new algorithm) but for the
> upstream I do not know if it is relevant to have 2 patches instead of one=
.

The major point of splitting patches to "one technical step" is to be
able to do fine-grained git bisect to find bugs such as this one :D
But admittedly the defintion of "techical step" is a bit fuzzy.

Yours,
Linus Walleij