From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA9233CEB3 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757425912; cv=none; b=Dbjs2X/3TFYIuTCqHpdqQpOJEjgjuu5fqoL+P/bYWdcxJyorj7LdBNCGHYBrXUlvka6mPEB5yQf7tglDy7/u+vspB2s0caw0MbEZEL5NnQlnsB+uU6sK0yu2Qo6pj1X6oEjfsFqER5u33U0KMrJHPYPVnnZ+NlxWXWP/O0uEY9k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757425912; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ra2ziyoRzaDncYLcWd6o29f18mYn+p/OfZ9NFhta0TI=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=Dz/Mr2gJ6ufF5iQP6g/gl0c9Z7jCo82hE4/Ci56OkOSia9e1Ij6ffi9p2Pf8IJz4xhezxW+0kQaaPisHsG2BO+9vFvjHsytPcxRjhci4YBH49eeHNBPg8/nXtuM5LspP1ovpfFQzO0434UQPtRk6rY7S72EGZNkbN9U8/ewx6io= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=oc5FMuoT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="oc5FMuoT" Received: from pps.filterd (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 5898qftr009199; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:43 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=IRemyUypDbljzNJrzzBbvec+4GNRQ1uSCXmFvt8xglM=; b=oc5FMuoTGmuE aX+WoaO4bdVF71H25qjm8yb+WyE1p6tL8Aiu6J7TMxWHGpfBgaSpdKQZyQWJRzGh m54UhsCH+CyQWFt1ZNgMG5uWlVh8JTTYpsPBLoU2CapKlROSGhbN/TQKPCkFJhJc RM6v+QmoSXoKYtsMZjfRycA5h9tF3kQuk/0NfZSoquclrzP1p5W6DCQJrkT0elTE +r+uOcfkf9TVOF3CaCZYOyZG7z5c4OB+DZWPrl5K/vQoareFsDhN95n52s54W2Y8 ITATfJqRCBQif69tYdIOhLQdLm/AtU1Ry+1G+0HGD+qz5ANR0vxlhe/zYPtcNjmW grD5AYsUfw== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 490cmwr5wa-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Sep 2025 13:51:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0353729.ppops.net (m0353729.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.1.12/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 589DXsZO012161; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:42 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 490cmwr5w4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Sep 2025 13:51:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 589Akiww010594; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:41 GMT Received: from smtprelay04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.71]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4910smubjx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Sep 2025 13:51:41 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.101]) by smtprelay04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 589DpddP39125646 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:39 GMT Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D2A5805C; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B6E5805E; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ltc.linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.5.196.140]) by smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 15:51:38 +0200 From: Harald Freudenberger To: Milan Broz Cc: Ingo Franzki , Mikulas Patocka , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Eric Biggers , dengler@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] dm-integrity: asynchronous hash support Reply-To: freude@linux.ibm.com Mail-Reply-To: freude@linux.ibm.com In-Reply-To: References: <20250908131642.385445532@debian4.vm> <3a6b6f8f-5205-459c-810a-2425aae92fc8@linux.ibm.com> <3184e0b1-571f-4cf7-94ef-acca41c12b02@gmail.com> Message-ID: <76c330493c036317755838d2dfce2de0@linux.ibm.com> X-Sender: freude@linux.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: CTaeZ2wjvzPeZ_nslAMQjLgzHr9zWQE5 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: u44EgnCjlO9z-E7DEMigR8nXvpDrMOgV X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=J52q7BnS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=68c030ee cx=c_pps a=3Bg1Hr4SwmMryq2xdFQyZA==:117 a=3Bg1Hr4SwmMryq2xdFQyZA==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=yJojWOMRYYMA:10 a=4HVZ629U5ZEAqiYOUDsA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjUwOTA2MDAyNSBTYWx0ZWRfX1D97KX8YwMVj LHFH4j1WZVIqv+2kwrrS6TqXSDTuAGFf9th35HIo3jSHm06KfSjxrAsNG00BGy24NUJrg4W8bAn 5bkwTdBpaEiRS7kfvnpltsOAdXFfk3ZTLqLZ42wc5y0jbPRw/r507T+6LwNjEGvOgiWLm/Fj2Nn y2htBqozqmM6DZfG/0Ww8+JQ1trsA7aQMUpWWTzvVjCYOFYgPANihKEq623Qjh8+BmN4JLcmsLe IQC6NOLw+sieVWYUQxDeZVT8fJZD+3hyicr8mcEgMlZwiefTNcSyi9cuqsyOauXVdCiHO0lAH5o wHMmY6CPvaVL0gZaU1jEQfMdvAiJxc1DCwk7eMvgmptsU2D5b60mkelOk1Y1gGMM0bbvGm14ZXL MwNbnDK/ X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1117,Hydra:6.1.9,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-09-09_02,2025-09-08_02,2025-03-28_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2507300000 definitions=main-2509060025 On 2025-09-09 14:15, Milan Broz wrote: > On 9/9/25 1:50 PM, Ingo Franzki wrote: >> On 09.09.2025 13:47, Milan Broz wrote: >>> On 9/9/25 1:18 PM, Ingo Franzki wrote: >>>>> Please, revert my patches and run the same test on a clean >>>>> 6.17.0-rc5 just >>>>> to verify that the patches do not introduce the bug. >>>> >>>> With your patches reverted the combined mode fails the same way as >>>> with your patches. >>>> So they did not introduce the bug. >>> >>> Please report it as cryptsetup issue with a reproducer so we can >>> later check it. >> >> I don't think its a cryptsetup bug, its rather that dm-crypt is >> missing something to deal with async HMAC ciphers. >> The point is that PHMAC is a async-only cipher, with no sync variant. > > I know, but there is no tracker for dm-crypt and what I like to have > some kind of upstream CI testing for PHMAC/PAES > even without mainframe hw (we already talked about a fake cipher > module). Let me think about this a bit... You are suggesting a test kernel module for e.g. x64 which acts like the phmac/paes implementation in a asynchronous way. I'll discuss this with Ingo. > > It is not an real issue as PHMAC is neither in released kernel nor in > cryptsetup yet, but we should have a test > coverage once it is merged. > > On the other side, the async thing is a real pain, is there any plan > to switch to something better in future > (for dm-crypt and dm-integrity)? > Well, as of now all the s390 pkey things are by nature asynchronous. Which means at any time the key may get invalid. It is in the end a hardware backed key and thus if the hardware is changed (for example a 'live' guest migration) the key runs invalid and needs to be re-derived or re-fetched. I don't see a way to hide this and have a synchronous implementation instead. I think on the contrary the need for asynchronous algorithms will increase. More and more platforms run virtual machines which exploit special hardware like AI accelerators and crypto co-processors and do support live guest migration. Well, that's future. However, it would be nice to have at least one asynchronous algorithm implementation available on a broad platform like x64 or arm maybe only for test of the dm-integrity layer. > Thanks, > Milan