linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] hw_random: core updates to allow more efficient drivers

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]

Message-ID: <4B14DF79.8010908@collabora.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:18:49 +0000
From:	Ian Molton <ian.molton@...labora.co.uk>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hw_random: core updates to allow more efficient 
 drivers

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:28 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>>> And might as well just #defube RNG_BUFFSIZE SMP_CACHE_BYTES (or use
>>> SMP_CACHE_BYTES here and sizeof() elsewhere).
>> This can lead to a rather small (4 byte) buffer on some systems, however
>> I don't know if in practice a tiny buffer or a big one would be better
>> for performance on those machines. I guess if its a problem someone can
>> patch the code to allocate a minimum of (say) 16 bytes in future...
> 
> Hmmm, I think this was bad advice from Rusty.

Not entirely...

> The goal is to size and align the buffer so that we know it will always
> work. Thus 64 bytes (always big enough but not so big that anyone will
> complain) and cache aligned (makes stupid things like Via Padlock happy
> -on Vias-). 

yep. Although making it the size of a cacheline makes sense on /most/
modern architectures - 32 bytes is a very common size - I think the
(current) worst case is one of the drivers wants to dump 3 u64s in one
go. virtio-rng will take what it can...

> Rusty's suggestion could easily have us in trouble if some driver wants
> to hand us a mere 64 bits on an architecture with 4-byte cache alignment
> but is otherwise perfectly happy with 64-bit stores. 

How about SNP_CACHE_BYTES or if less, then 32 bytes minimum? Or just
stick with 64 bytes. Either way works for me.

-Ian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/