Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for November 29 (aesni-intel)

From: Mathias Krause <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:26:31 +0100

On 29.11.2010, 17:31 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:03:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Changes since 20101126:
> 
> 
> on i386 builds, I get tons of these (and more) errors:
> 
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12'
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:842: Error: bad register name `%r13'
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:843: Error: bad register name `%r14'
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:844: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:849: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:850: Error: bad register name `%rsp'
> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:851: Error: bad register name `%r9'
> 
> even though the kernel .config file says:
> 
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES=m
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_586=m
> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_NI_INTEL=m
> 
> Should arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S be testing
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> instead of
> #ifdef __x86_64__
> or does that not matter?
> 
> or is this a toolchain issue?

Well, __x86_64__ should be a build-in define of the compiler while
CONFIG_X86_64 is defined for 64 bit builds in include/generated/autoconf.h.
So by using the latter we should be on the safe side but if your compiler
defines __x86_64__ for 32-bit builds it's simply broken. Also git grep
showed quite a few more places using __x86_64__ so those would miscompile on
your toolchain, too.

But it looks like linux-next is just missing
559ad0ff1368baea14dbc3207d55b02bd69bda4b from Herbert's git repo at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git.
That should fix the build issue.

Kind Regards,
Mathias