From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com,
memxor@gmail.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org,
emil@etsalapatis.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kmehltretter@gmail.com,
martin.lau@kernel.org, mason@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4] bpf: crypto: Use AES-CBC and AES-ECB libraries
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:55:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260923045534.GD42709@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a5e07fdd93b0f6b38dfce4cf977e88eac653bed08ee713372bf31bc6cff349e7@mail.kernel.org>
On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 04:22:57AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> This isn't a bug, but struct aes_enckey pads itself so the round keys
> can be 16-byte aligned for better performance (as documented in
> include/crypto/aes.h). Putting the 4-byte algo enum before the key union
> means key.aes lands at offset 4, so the round keys can never hit that
> alignment. Would putting key first (or aligning it) be worth considering
> here?
Sure, but it's very much bikeshedding. If someone cared about
performance enough to be micro-optimizing the data alignment here, they
would also have noticed than the optimized implementations of AES modes
aren't actually being used, which is way, *way* more important.
Coincidentally, I'm addressing that in a separate series
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20260921050910.296144-1-ebiggers@kernel.org/)...
I would not consider it worth worrying about the alignment here.
> This isn't a bug, but both helpers repeat the same src_len %
> AES_BLOCK_SIZE and dst_len < src_len checks. Could that validation stay
> in bpf_crypto_crypt() next to the existing length checks, leaving only
> the iv_len check per mode?
It's done the way it is because it makes it more straightforward to add
AES-GCM support, which is desired as per previous discussions.
Anyway, these random bpf-ci bot comments on every version are getting a
bit annoying. Especially when it explicitly says "This isn't a bug",
and then the instructions at the end of the email assume it is.
- Eric
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-23 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-23 3:27 [PATCH bpf-next v4] bpf: crypto: Use AES-CBC and AES-ECB libraries Eric Biggers
2026-09-23 3:37 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-23 4:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 4:11 ` Eric Biggers
2026-09-23 4:15 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 4:21 ` Eric Biggers
2026-09-23 4:55 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 5:01 ` Eric Biggers
2026-09-24 2:18 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-23 4:22 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-23 4:55 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260923045534.GD42709@sol \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kmehltretter@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.