public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@nxp.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@nxp.com>,
	Silvano Di Ninno <silvano.dininno@nxp.com>,
	Franck Lenormand <franck.lenormand@nxp.com>,
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	"Iuliana Prodan (OSS)" <iuliana.prodan@oss.nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] crypto: add CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 20:21:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ec4c8bd-d7ca-ad98-55b1-e49944d3113d@nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXGNqY18R7f=oOvrjeboVHVNZ415ASV6EOiwvXU_UKB5fQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/26/2020 7:12 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 17:00, Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@nxp.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/2020 9:09 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 22:39, Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@nxp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/25/2020 11:16 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 22:14, Iuliana Prodan (OSS)
>>>>> <iuliana.prodan@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@nxp.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add the option to allocate the crypto request object plus any extra space
>>>>>> needed by the driver into a DMA-able memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag to be used by backend implementations to
>>>>>> indicate to crypto API the need to allocate GFP_DMA memory
>>>>>> for private contexts of the crypto requests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are always directional DMA mappings, right? So why can't we use
>>>>> bounce buffering here?
>>>>>
>>>> The idea was to avoid allocating any memory in crypto drivers.
>>>> We want to be able to use dm-crypt with CAAM, which needs DMA-able
>>>> memory and increasing reqsize is not enough.
>>>
>>> But what does 'needs DMA-able memory' mean? DMA operations are
>>> asynchronous by definition, and so the DMA layer should be able to
>>> allocate bounce buffers when needed. This will cost some performance
>>> in cases where the hardware cannot address all of memory directly, but
>>> this is a consequence of the design, and I don't think we should
>>> burden the generic API with this.
>>>
>> Ard, I believe you're right.
>>
>> In CAAM, for req->src and req->dst, which comes from crypto request, we
>> use DMA mappings without knowing if the memory is DMAable or not.
>>
>> We should do the same for CAAM's hw descriptors commands and link
>> tables. That's the extra memory allocated by increasing reqsize.
>>
> 
> It depends on whether any such mappings are non-directional. But I
> would not expect per-request mappings to be modifiable by both the CPU
> and the device at the same time.
> 
There are bidirectional mappings on req->src (if it's also used for 
output) and IV (if exits).
But, these are not modify by CPU and CAAM at the same time.

> 
>> Horia, do you see any limitations, in CAAM, for not using the above
>> approach?
>>
>>
>>>> It started from here
>>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flinux-crypto%2F71b6f739-d4a8-8b26-bf78-ce9acf9a0f99%40nxp.com%2FT%2F%23m39684173a2f0f4b83d8bcbec223e98169273d1e4&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ciuliana.prodan%40nxp.com%7Cfdd8e587f49f44821e6d08d8922e8ca9%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637420075916446952%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=x2G4kaWiKVVcOie2yC8JwOpDnPsa3OPO6HpfThqXChE%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>>
>>>>>> For IPsec use cases, CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag is also checked in
>>>>>> esp_alloc_tmp() function for IPv4 and IPv6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This series includes an example of how a driver can use
>>>>>> CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag while setting reqsize to a larger value
>>>>>> to avoid allocating memory at crypto request runtime.
>>>>>> The extra size needed by the driver is added to the reqsize field
>>>>>> that indicates how much memory could be needed per request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Iuliana Prodan (4):
>>>>>>      crypto: add CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag
>>>>>>      net: esp: check CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag when allocating crypto request
>>>>>>      crypto: caam - avoid allocating memory at crypto request runtime for
>>>>>>        skcipher
>>>>>>      crypto: caam - avoid allocating memory at crypto request runtime for
>>>>>>        aead
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     drivers/crypto/caam/caamalg.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>>>     include/crypto/aead.h         |   4 ++
>>>>>>     include/crypto/akcipher.h     |  21 ++++++
>>>>>>     include/crypto/hash.h         |   4 ++
>>>>>>     include/crypto/skcipher.h     |   4 ++
>>>>>>     include/linux/crypto.h        |   1 +
>>>>>>     net/ipv4/esp4.c               |   7 +-
>>>>>>     net/ipv6/esp6.c               |   7 +-
>>>>>>     8 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>>

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-26 18:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-25 21:13 [RFC PATCH 0/4] crypto: add CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag Iuliana Prodan (OSS)
2020-11-25 21:13 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] " Iuliana Prodan (OSS)
2020-11-25 21:13 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] net: esp: check CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag when allocating crypto request Iuliana Prodan (OSS)
2020-11-25 21:13 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] crypto: caam - avoid allocating memory at crypto request runtime for skcipher Iuliana Prodan (OSS)
2020-11-25 21:13 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] crypto: caam - avoid allocating memory at crypto request runtime for aead Iuliana Prodan (OSS)
2020-11-25 21:16 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] crypto: add CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_DMA flag Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-25 21:39   ` Iuliana Prodan
2020-11-26  7:09     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-26 16:00       ` Iuliana Prodan
2020-11-26 17:12         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2020-11-26 18:21           ` Iuliana Prodan [this message]
2020-12-07 13:49       ` Horia Geantă
2020-12-08  7:43         ` Ard Biesheuvel

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=5ec4c8bd-d7ca-ad98-55b1-e49944d3113d@nxp.com \
    --to=iuliana.prodan@nxp.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=aymen.sghaier@nxp.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=franck.lenormand@nxp.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=horia.geanta@nxp.com \
    --cc=iuliana.prodan@oss.nxp.com \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-imx@nxp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=silvano.dininno@nxp.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox