linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v4 2/4] crypto: Introduce CRYPTO_ALG

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, 15 Jun 2016 14:49:40 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	"open list:DEVICE-MAPPER (LVM)" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>, tadeusz.struk@...el.com,
	smueller@...onox.de, Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	"open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" 
	<linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 2/4] crypto: Introduce CRYPTO_ALG_BULK flag

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:27:04PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> 
> After some investigation, I still think we should divide the bulk
> request from dm-crypt into small request (each one is 512bytes) if
> this algorithm is not support bulk mode (like CBC). We have talked
> with dm-crypt
> maintainers why dm-crypt always use 512 bytes as one request size in
> below thread, could you please check it?
> http://www.kernelhub.org/?p=2&msg=907022

That link only points to an email about an oops.

Diggin through that thread, the only objection I have seen is about
the fact that you have to generate a fresh IV for each sector, which
is precisely what I'm suggesting that you do.

IOW, implement the IV generators in the crypto API, and then you can
easily generate a new IV (if necessary) for each sector.

> That means if we move the IV handling into crypto API, we still can
> not use bulk interface for all algorithm, for example we still need to
> read/write with 512 bytes for CBC, you can't use 4k or more block on
> CBC (and most other encryption modes). If only a part of 4k block is
> written (and then system crash happens), CBC would corrupt the block
> completely. It means if we map one whole bio with bulk interface in
> dm-crypt, we need to divide into every 512 bytes requests in crypto
> layer. So I don't think we can handle every algorithm with bulk
> interface just moving the IV handling into crypto API. Thanks.

Of course you would do CBC in 512-byte blocks, but my point is that
you should do this in a crypto API algorithm, rather than dm-crypt
as we do now.  Once you implement that then dm-crypt can treat
every algorithm as if they supported bulk processing.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt