Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Add native instruction support for X64

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 11/11/20 02:43, Zurcher, Christopher J wrote:
> I don't want to speak for Laszlo but I filed an issue against OpenSSL that the NASM build should not assume win64:
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/12712

If that's viable, it's clearly the best solution.

> 
> The issue was triaged as a bug by OpenSSL, so I think the long-term plan would be to fix OpenSSL to not set win64 flag by default on all NASM builds, at which point I think we should be able to use the same NASM files for VS and GCC. I'm not sure if the classification as a bug means the fix could be made in 1.1.1x builds or if it could only go into 3.x.

Either way, it still (hopefully) gives us a path for re-simplifying.

Thanks!
Laszlo

> 
> Thanks,
> Christopher Zurcher
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 09:08
>> To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Zurcher, Christopher J
>> <christopher.j.zurcher@intel.com>
>> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Wang, Jian J
>> <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Lu, XiaoyuX <xiaoyux.lu@intel.com>; Kinney, Michael
>> D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
>> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Add native
>> instruction support for X64
>>
>> Laszlo.
>> If you disagree, what is your proposal?
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:31 PM
>>> To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Zurcher, Christopher J
>>> <christopher.j.zurcher@intel.com>
>>> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; gaoliming <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Wang,
>>> Jian J <jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Lu, XiaoyuX <xiaoyux.lu@intel.com>; Kinney,
>>> Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel
>>> <ard.biesheuvel@arm.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v5 0/2] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: Add native
>>> instruction support for X64
>>>
>>> On 11/07/20 03:24, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
>>>> The reason we choose NASM is that we can use same assembly in windows
>>> build and Linux build. However if this NASM cannot be used in Linux, then
>>> the benefit does not exist any more. You can generate GAS to support GCC
>>> build, and check in .S file.
>>>
>>> I disagree with this idea. To me (as an exclusive GCC user), uniformity
>>> of assembly files is *much* more important than getting native
>>> instruction support in OpenSSL with all toolchains at the exact same time.
>>>
>>> If we enable native instruction support for (a) VS and CLANGPDB now, and
>>> (b) for GCC later, then that's two steps, with each step being in the
>>> forward direction. Performing just (a) for now creates no technical
>>> debt. A feature gap is not technical debt; you cannot mistake a missing
>>> feature for a working feature.
>>>
>>> If we re-add .S files now, for whatever purpose, that's a step *back*,
>>> however. It creates technical debt. A working feature on an invalid
>>> basis *can* be mistaken for a working feature, and we shouldn't do that
>>> (unless there are strong business needs for some participants, *AND* we
>>> have a *very specific* plan and timeline for backing out the hack). I
>>> really don't have any trust in technical debt being "paid" in edk2
>>> anytime soon, though.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Laszlo
>