From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] crypto: add CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_PARALLEL flag
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:14:12 +0000
Message-ID: <20180207161412.00007bbe@huawei.com>
References: <2118226.LQArbCsRu5@tauon.chronox.de>
        <3051095.6v3pDGNVZ5@tauon.chronox.de>
        <20180207153911.00002ac6@huawei.com>
        <2396074.YQ3hgbV6mL@tauon.chronox.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@benyossef.com>,
        Harsh Jain <harsh@chelsio.com>,
        "Linux Crypto Mailing List" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linuxarm@huawei.com>
To: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Return-path: <linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:4772 "EHLO huawei.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1754543AbeBGQOl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 7 Feb 2018 11:14:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <2396074.YQ3hgbV6mL@tauon.chronox.de>
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:43:10 +0100
Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2018, 16:39:11 CET schrieb Jonathan Cameron:
> 
> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:48:32 +0100
> > 
> > Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de> wrote:  
> > > Am Mittwoch, 7. Februar 2018, 08:44:04 CET schrieb Stephan Müller:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > >   
> > > > diff --git a/crypto/algif_aead.c b/crypto/algif_aead.c
> > > > index 3970ad7f6fd0..da010405eea0 100644
> > > > --- a/crypto/algif_aead.c
> > > > +++ b/crypto/algif_aead.c
> > > > @@ -66,13 +66,22 @@ static int aead_sendmsg(struct socket *sock, struct
> > > > msghdr *msg, size_t size) {
> > > > 
> > > >  	struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> > > >  	struct alg_sock *ask = alg_sk(sk);
> > > > 
> > > > +	struct af_alg_ctx *ctx = ask->private;
> > > > 
> > > >  	struct sock *psk = ask->parent;
> > > >  	struct alg_sock *pask = alg_sk(psk);
> > > >  	struct aead_tfm *aeadc = pask->private;
> > > > 
> > > > -	struct crypto_aead *tfm = aeadc->aead;
> > > > -	unsigned int ivsize = crypto_aead_ivsize(tfm);
> > > > +	struct crypto_aead *aead = aeadc->aead;
> > > > +	struct crypto_tfm *tfm = crypto_aead_tfm(aead);
> > > > +	unsigned int ivsize = crypto_aead_ivsize(aead);
> > > > +	int ret = af_alg_sendmsg(sock, msg, size, ivsize);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (ret < 0)
> > > > +		return ret;
> > > > 
> > > > -	return af_alg_sendmsg(sock, msg, size, ivsize);
> > > > +	if (ctx->iiv == ALG_IIV_USE)  
> > > 
> > > This should be ALG_IIV_DISABLE of course.  
> > 
> > You say that, but my initial reading was that the core
> > was requesting that the driver do things in parallel
> > irrespective of whether the driver thought it was safe.
> > So I would think this was correct.
> > 
> > Definitely needs some documentation or a clearer name.  
> 
> How about:
> 
> ALG_IV_SERIAL_PROCESSING (was ALG_IIV_DISABLE)
> ALG_IV_PARALLEL_PROCESSING (was ALG_IIV_USE)
> 
Actually those were fine on the basis that inline iv is
obvious enough, it was CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_PARALLEL that
was causing me confusion.

Sorry, wasn't terribly clear on that!

Jonathan

> Ciao
> Stephan
> 
>