From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143D5C4167B for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:16:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229741AbjK2UQB (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:16:01 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42108 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233754AbjK2UQA (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:16:00 -0500 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E9510C8 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 12:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B55CCC433CC; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:16:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1701288963; bh=eJQhkQLzUwwUMvhzdNW9MAj6eRgcFa4pmRj/Q9yI5aQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=A58xGnKFd8gNAc7MIbjqM3wnqSqhoDtxaRuCpIVWNjwFgXMRCDGM6O7s/U+F7yyFy uFtlTSLv9XqLau5R0N9MPb/ciOx7gW1x9MGpmJazMX1Uc6uKlXrO3RbmCAX5n780PR 2eUFCyvP5Gzh8aThoQCLxK17xsQ8ddepch5wHQknLNhxoScaDKqgycFUV+18HhEWdO ol489AUDXcxReKqC385IxnEAJZYsSKqGMRg0QmBKI3IptwV7XtJAvbsmrYxQkRsmD3 9y+DxI8Y04LoX9ALLe4ASJVkwTY8rfE0CI5Eap7J80HzqBpHxNXGWkB5u+TQkO4C8p IsiMIOv1l6fsQ== Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 12:16:01 -0800 From: Eric Biggers To: Jerry Shih Cc: Paul Walmsley , palmer@dabbelt.com, Albert Ou , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, conor.dooley@microchip.com, ardb@kernel.org, heiko@sntech.de, phoebe.chen@sifive.com, hongrong.hsu@sifive.com, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] RISC-V: crypto: add accelerated AES-CBC/CTR/ECB/XTS implementations Message-ID: <20231129201601.GA1174@sol.localdomain> References: <20231127070703.1697-1-jerry.shih@sifive.com> <20231127070703.1697-8-jerry.shih@sifive.com> <20231128040716.GI1463@sol.localdomain> <7DFBB20D-B8D4-409B-8562-4C60E67FD279@sifive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7DFBB20D-B8D4-409B-8562-4C60E67FD279@sifive.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 03:57:25PM +0800, Jerry Shih wrote: > On Nov 28, 2023, at 12:07, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 03:06:57PM +0800, Jerry Shih wrote: > >> +typedef void (*aes_xts_func)(const u8 *in, u8 *out, size_t length, > >> + const struct crypto_aes_ctx *key, u8 *iv, > >> + int update_iv); > > > > There's no need for this indirection, because the function pointer can only have > > one value. > > > > Note also that when Control Flow Integrity is enabled, assembly functions can > > only be called indirectly when they use SYM_TYPED_FUNC_START. That's another > > reason to avoid indirect calls that aren't actually necessary. > > We have two function pointers for encryption and decryption. > static int xts_encrypt(struct skcipher_request *req) > { > return xts_crypt(req, rv64i_zvbb_zvkg_zvkned_aes_xts_encrypt); > } > > static int xts_decrypt(struct skcipher_request *req) > { > return xts_crypt(req, rv64i_zvbb_zvkg_zvkned_aes_xts_decrypt); > } > The enc and dec path could be folded together into `xts_crypt()`, but we will have > additional branches for enc/decryption path if we don't want to have the indirect calls. > Use `SYM_TYPED_FUNC_START` in asm might be better. > Right. Normal branches are still more efficient and straightforward than indirect calls, though, and they don't need any special considerations for CFI. So I'd just add a 'bool encrypt' or 'bool decrypt' argument to xts_crypt(), and make xts_crypt() call the appropriate assembly function based on that. > > Did you consider writing xts_crypt() the way that arm64 and x86 do it? The > > above seems to reinvent sort of the same thing from first principles. I'm > > wondering if you should just copy the existing approach for now. Then there > > would be no need to add the scatterwalk_next() function, and also the handling > > of inputs that don't need ciphertext stealing would be a bit more streamlined. > > I will check the arm and x86's implementations. > But the `scatterwalk_next()` proposed in this series does the same thing as the > call `scatterwalk_ffwd()` in arm and x86's implementations. > The scatterwalk_ffwd() iterates from the beginning of scatterlist(O(n)), but the > scatterwalk_next() is just iterates from the end point of the last used > scatterlist(O(1)). Sure, but your scatterwalk_next() only matters when there are multiple scatterlist entries and the AES-XTS message length isn't a multiple of the AES block size. That's not an important case, so there's little need to micro-optimize it. The case that actually matters for AES-XTS is a single-entry scatterlist containing a whole number of AES blocks. - Eric