linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH crypto] AES: Add support to Intel AES-NI instructions

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:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:33:39 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"linux-crypto@...breakpoint.cc" <linux-crypto@...breakpoint.cc>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH crypto] AES: Add support to
	Intel	AES-NI	instructions

On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 09:26 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > f. if TS is clear, then use x86_64 implementation. Otherwise if
> > user-space has touched the FPU, we save the state, if not then simply
> > clear TS.
> 
> Well I'd rather avoid using the x86_64 implementation ever because
> unless the chip guys have really screwed up we should be looking at
> a difference of at least a factor of 10.
> 
> BTW I wasn't very clear in the original email.  You'd only do the
> asynchronous operation for CBC/ECB.  For the simple AES case I
> suppose we'll just have to stick to the x86_64 fallback.  This'll
> really suck for disk encryption but I guess you could always add
> an LRW/XTS mode to your code.

It seems that asynchronous operations are only provided in blkcipher
level not cipher level. So the situation may be as follow:

- Now an AES core block algorithm is implemented with AES-NI as
CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_CIPHER, which can benefit all modes (CBC, LRW, etc). But
because it seems that there is no asynchronous interface for
CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_CIPHER, the AES core block algorithm can not use a
thread to defer real operations.

- To take full advantage of AES-NI pipeline implementation, at least
"cbc(aes)", "ecb(aes)" and "ctr(aes)" should be implemented as
CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_ABLKCIPHER. So a thread can be used to defer real
operation upon soft_irq.

Because the combination that kernel process context FPU usage + soft_irq
AES usage is fairly rare, I think the above combination is acceptable.
That is,

- In AES core block algorithm implementation with AES-NI, use x86_64
implementation for the combination above.

- In "cbc(aes)", "ecb(aes)" and "ctr(aes)", use thread deferring for the
combination above.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)