linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/23] zinc: ChaCha20 ARM and ARM64 implementations

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]

Message-ID: <CAHmME9oXBin5NyVTKfV2efSzztW4Snno+sZoWJr-ieDLNVgVGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:06:50 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/23] zinc: ChaCha20 ARM and ARM64 implementations

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:27 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> I would add another consideration: if you can get better latency with negligible overhead (0.1%? 0.05%), then that might make sense too. For example, it seems plausible that checking need_resched() every few blocks adds basically no overhead, and the SIMD helpers could do this themselves or perhaps only ever do a block at a time.
>
> need_resched() costs a cacheline access, but it’s usually a hot cacheline, and the actual check is just whether a certain bit in memory is set.

Yes you're right, I do plan to check quite often, rather than seldom,
for this reason. I've been toying with the idea of instead processing
65k (maximum size of a UDP packet) at a time before checking
need_resched(), but armed with the 20µs figure, this isn't remotely
possible on most hardware. So I'll stick with the original
conservative plan of checking very often, and not making things
different from the aspects worked out by the present crypto API in
this regard.