netdev - RE: sha512: make it work, undo percpu message schedule

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:45:26 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Steffen Klassert" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:	"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"Alexey Dobriyan" <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<ken@...elabs.ch>
Subject: RE: sha512: make it work, undo percpu message schedule

 
> Good catch. It can be generalized to any interrupts (soft and hard)
> 
> Another solution is using two blocks, one used from interrupt context.
> 
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64[80], msg_schedule);
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64[80], msg_schedule_irq);
> 
> (Like we do for SNMP mibs on !x86 arches)

Don't you need one block per interrupt level ?

It also means that the functions need to know where they
are being called from - which may not be true.

A thought is that if you are going to reserve this memory
for each cpu, it might as well be reserved as part of the
interrupt stack (assuming interrupts switch stacks).

Process level code would still need to use a reserved buffer.

	David


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html