linux-kernel - Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ

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: <CAHmME9pGoRogjHSSy-G-sB4-cHMGcjCeW9PSrNw1h5FsKzfWAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:34:54 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org,
        WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com>,
        k@...ka.home.kg
Subject: Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ_STACK?

Hey Thomas,

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> That preempt_disable() prevents merily preemption as the name says, but it
> wont prevent softirq handlers from running on return from interrupt. So
> what's the point?

Oh, interesting. Okay, then in that case the proposed define wouldn't
be useful for my purposes. What clever tricks do I have at my
disposal, then?

>> If not, do you have a better solution for me (which doesn't
>> involve using kmalloc or choosing a different crypto primitive)?
>
> What's wrong with using kmalloc?

It's cumbersome and potentially slow. This is crypto code, where speed
matters a lot. Avoiding allocations is usually the lowest hanging
fruit among optimizations. To give you some idea, here's a somewhat
horrible solution using kmalloc I hacked together: [1]. I'm not to
happy with what it looks like, code-wise, and there's around a 16%
slowdown, which isn't nice either.

[1] https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/commit/?h=jd/curve25519-kmalloc