[PATCH 4/7] crypto: sparc/md5 - Remove SPARC64 optimized MD5 code

[Eric Biggers]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 01:44:21PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 8/4/25 05:44, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 
> > Taken together, it's clear that it's time to retire these additional MD5
> > implementations, and focus maintenance on the MD5 generic C code.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x00], %f8
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x08], %f10
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x10], %f12
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x18], %f14
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x20], %f16
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x28], %f18
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x30], %f20
> > -	ldd	[%o1 + 0x38], %f22
> > -
> > -	MD5
> 
> This is a literal CPU instruction that ingests sixteen registers (f8 to f23)
> and updates the hash state in f0 to f3.

Note that QEMU doesn't support this instruction.  I don't actually know
whether the SPARC64 MD5 code even works, especially after (presumably
untested) refactoring like commit cc1f5bbe428c91.  I don't think anyone
does, TBH.  No one seems to be running the crypto tests on SPARC64.

> I can see the point of removing hand-optimized assembler code when a
> compiler can generate something that runs just as well from generic code,
> but this here is using CPU extensions that were made for this specific
> purpose.

You do realize this is MD5, right?  And also SPARC64?

I'm confused why people are so attached to still having MD5 assembly
code in 2025, and *only for rare platforms*.  It's illogical.

We should just treat MD5 like the other legacy algorithms MD4 and RC4,
for which the kernel just has generic C code.  That works perfectly fine
for the few users that still need those algorithms for compatibility
reasons.

> This is exactly the kind of thing you would point to as an argument why
> asynchronous hardware offload support is unnecessary.

For an algorithm that is actually worthwhile to accelerate, sure.  For
MD5, it's not worthwhile anyway.

- Eric