On 29.11.2010, 21:37 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 11/29/10 12:21, Mathias Krause wrote: >> On 29.11.2010, 21:11 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 11/29/10 12:02, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>> On 29.11.2010, 20:54 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>> On 11/29/10 11:45, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>>>> On 29.11.2010, 20:31 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/29/10 11:21, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>>>>>> On 29.11.2010, 19:54 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 10:26, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The build problem still happens when that patch is applied. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's weird. So it must be something with your toolchain. >>>>>>>> Can you please post the output of the following commands?: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m32 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #define __i386 1 >>>>>>> #define __i386__ 1 >>>>>>> #define i386 1 >>>>>>> #define __i586 1 >>>>>>> #define __i586__ 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m64 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #define __x86_64 1 >>>>>>> #define __x86_64__ 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So that's not the problem... and the patch below didn't help. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's odd. The output of the commands looks good so the x86-64 specific >>>>>> code >>>>>> should be left out for 32-bit builds. :/ >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry that I even asked about that. What next? >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you please post the full error message. Meanwhile I'm checking out a >>>>>> linux-next tree, trying to reproduce your problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I just built with "make V=1" to see the full commands that are used, but >>>>> that didn't help me either: >>>>> >>>>> gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/crypto/.aesni-intel_asm.o.d -nostdinc -isystem >>>>> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.1/include >>>>> -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/include -Iinclude >>>>> -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/include -include >>>>> include/generated/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -D__ASSEMBLY__ -m32 >>>>> -DCONFIG_AS_CFI=1 -DCONFIG_AS_CFI_SIGNAL_FRAME=1 -DMODULE -c -o >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.o >>>>> /lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are 2945 lines like this: >>>>> >>>>> linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad >>>>> register name `%r12' >>>> >>>> Well, in my tree (linux-next + 559ad0ff) line 841 is a comment. Albeit >>>> without >>>> 559ad0ff it's a 'push %r12'. So maybe you should apply the patch just once >>>> more to be sure. ;) >>> >>> Touche. >>> What does that patch have to do with aesni-intel?? >> >> The description should be clear enough: "crypto: aesni-intel - Fixed build >> error >> on x86-32". >> Here is the link to the patch: >> <http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git;a=patch;h=559ad0ff1368baea14dbc3207d55b02bd69bda4b>. >> Please apply it on >> top of your linux-next build. >> >>> I'm using the linux-next tarball of 20111129. >>> However, your s/__x86_64__/CONFIG_X86_64/ patch was applied, so I dropped >>> it. >> >> Well I doubt it. The patch was made on top of 559ad0ff so it should have >> failed >> to apply in your tree since obviously 559ad0ff is missing. >> >>> new output file: >>> http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/doc/cry4.out >> >> Same bug: 559ad0ff is still missing. Please apply the patch from the link >> above. > > Thanks for persisting/continuing with me. > I apologize, I had applied the most recent patch in Herbert's cryptodev repo, > not the one that you referred me to. > > Yes, the build is now fixed.
Great! Have fun with your new AESNI-accelerated crypto :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
