linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library

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:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:07:43 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, andrew@...n.ch,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:32 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:52 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > I think the module organization needs to change. It needs to be possible to have chacha20 built in but AES or whatever as a module.
>
> Okay, I'll do that for v5.
>
> > I might have agreed before Spectre :(. Unfortunately, unless we do some magic, I think the code would look something like:
> >
> > if (static_branch_likely(have_simd)) arch_chacha20();
> >
> > ...where arch_chacha20 is a *pointer*. And that will generate a retpoline and run very, very slowly.  (I just rewrote some of the x86 entry code to eliminate one retpoline. I got a 5% speedup on some tests according to the kbuild bot.)
>
> Actually, the way it works now benefits from the compilers inliner and
> the branch predictor. I benchmarked this without any retpoline
> slowdowns, and the branch predictor becomes correct pretty much all
> the time. We can tinker with this after the initial merge, if you
> really want, but avoiding function pointers and instead using ordinary
> branches really winds up being quite fast.

Indeed.  What I'm saying is that you shouldn't refactor it this way
because it will be slow.  I agree it would be conceptually nice to be
able to blacklist a chacha20_x86_64 module to disable the asm, but I
think it would be very hard to get good performance.

--Andy