Re: [PATCH v8.1 1/2] target/s390x: support SHA-512 extensions

[Thomas Huth]

On 22/09/2022 18.35, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 5:55 PM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 22/09/2022 17.38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@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