linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] crypto: [sha] glue code for Intel SHA extensions optimized SHA1 & SHA256

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <10793794.Du4Jcu9jOE@tauon.atsec.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Sep 2015 21:15:40 +0200
From:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"David S.Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Sean Gulley <sean.m.gulley@...el.com>,
	Chandramouli Narayanan <mouli_7982@...oo.com>,
	Vinodh Gopal <vinodh.gopal@...el.com>,
	James Guilford <james.guilford@...el.com>,
	Wajdi Feghali <wajdi.k.feghali@...el.com>,
	Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@....fi>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] crypto: [sha] glue code for Intel SHA extensions optimized SHA1 & SHA256

Am Freitag, 11. September 2015, 11:49:32 schrieb Tim Chen:

Hi Tim,

>On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:02 +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 10. September 2015, 17:04:31 schrieb Tim Chen:
>> 
>> Hi Tim,
>> 
>> >Is there a scenario you can think of
>> >when a lower performing sha1 transform needs to
>> >be exposed as a separate driver?
>> 
>> My immediate concern is testing: it is hard to test the individual
>> implementations.
>
>Not hard, just one line in the glue code to set the transform
>to the one you need it you really want to test individual
>implementation.  Usually user of sha don't care which sha driver
>they got, but just the highest priority one.
>So you will anyway need to patch and change the priority of the sha
>driver to expose a specific one for testing.

Sure, it is not hard when you recompile. But when you have to test one given 
kernel binary, it is a challenge.
>
>> >Otherwise the glue code logic will only expose the
>> >best performing one for a cpu and hide the others, which was intentional
>> >on our part to prevent a lower performing sha from getting used.
>> 
>> Agreed, but the kernel crypto API does that already using the priorities --
>> IMHO a very clean and easy to interpret solution.
>> 
>> Furthermore, if somebody really has a need to not use the fastest HW
>> implementation, the kernel crypto API allows him to do that. With the hard-
>> wired approach in the glue file, you are stuck.
>
>Still, why would some kernel module specifically not want to
>use the fastest HW implementation, and explicitly ask for
>a slower driver?

I have seen one instance where a hardware driver was broken on one particular 
hardware. So, the only way was to disable it. In our case here, disabling 
means to go back to the software implementation of SHA.

Ciao
Stephan
--
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/