netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 3/3] selftests: bpf: crypto skcipher algo selftests

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:19:34 +0100
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Andrii
 Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Mykola
 Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 Victor Stewart <v@...etag.social>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 3/3] selftests: bpf: crypto skcipher algo
 selftests

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:43 AM +01, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 02:08 PM -08, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>> Add simple tc hook selftests to show the way to work with new crypto
>> BPF API. Some tricky dynptr initialization is used to provide empty iv
>> dynptr. Simple AES-ECB algo is used to demonstrate encryption and
>> decryption of fixed size buffers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>
>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/crypto_sanity.c
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/crypto_sanity.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..70bde9640651
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/crypto_sanity.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
>
> [...]
>
>> +static void deinit_afalg(void)
>> +{
>> +	if (tfmfd)
>> +		close(tfmfd);
>> +	if (opfd)
>> +		close(opfd);
>> +}
>
> Did you mean tfmfd/opfd != -1?
>
> [...]

Nevermind. I missed Martin's earlier feedback.