linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: tcrypt - Fix memory leaks/crashes in multibuffer hash speed test

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]

Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:45:56 -0700
From:	Megha Dey <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: tcrypt - Fix memory leaks/crashes in
 multibuffer hash speed test

I tested the latest cryptodev tree on my haswell machine and this is
what I see:
[   40.402834] modprobe tcrypt mode=422
[   40.403105] testing speed of multibuffer sha1 (sha1_mb)
[   40.403108] test  0 (   16 byte blocks,   16 bytes per update,   1
updates):  32271 cycles/operation,  252 cycles/byte
[   40.403118] At least one hashing failed ret=-115
[   43.218712] modprobe tcrypt mode=423
[   43.218712] testing speed of multibuffer sha256 (sha256_mb)
[   43.218715] test  0 (   16 byte blocks,   16 bytes per update,   1
updates): 106965 cycles/operation,  835 cycles/byte
[   43.218747] At least one hashing failed ret=-115
[   45.346657] modprobe tcrypt mode=424
[   45.346657] testing speed of multibuffer sha512 (sha512_mb)
[   45.346660] test  0 (   16 byte blocks,   16 bytes per update,   1
updates):  43179 cycles/operation,  337 cycles/byte
[   45.346673] At least one hashing failed ret=-115

Don't think this is expected, is it?

This is the patch which might have an issue?
72259deb3a9f2c07d18d71d7c9356754e7d88369

Thanks,
Megha

On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 10:28 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 06/29/2016 10:19 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:16:10AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> Seems to work fine except:
> >> 1. The updates are always 1.
> > 
> > Yes the test function only does digest so it's always one update.
> > 
> >> 2. For bigger blocks it reports always 1 or 3 cycles per byte:
> > 
> > Yes the average cycles per-byte should reach an asymptotic value.
> 
> Then:
> Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>