linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC 26/62] keys/mktme: Move the MKTME payload into a cache aligned structure

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: <20190614171025.GA5917@alison-desk.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:10:25 -0700
From:   Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 26/62] keys/mktme: Move the MKTME payload into a
 cache aligned structure

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:35:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:43:46PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 
> > +/* Copy the payload to the HW programming structure and program this KeyID */
> > +static int mktme_program_keyid(int keyid, struct mktme_payload *payload)
> > +{
> > +	struct mktme_key_program *kprog = NULL;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	kprog = kmem_cache_zalloc(mktme_prog_cache, GFP_ATOMIC);
> 
> Why GFP_ATOMIC, afaict neither of the usage is with a spinlock held.

Got it. GFP_ATOMIC not needed.
That said, this is an artifact of reworking the locking, and that 
locking may need to change again. If it does, will try to pre-allocate
rather than depend on GFP_ATOMIC here.

> 
> > +	if (!kprog)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	/* Hardware programming requires cached aligned struct */
> > +	kprog->keyid = keyid;
> > +	kprog->keyid_ctrl = payload->keyid_ctrl;
> > +	memcpy(kprog->key_field_1, payload->data_key, MKTME_AES_XTS_SIZE);
> > +	memcpy(kprog->key_field_2, payload->tweak_key, MKTME_AES_XTS_SIZE);
> > +
> > +	ret = MKTME_PROG_SUCCESS;	/* Future programming call */
> > +	kmem_cache_free(mktme_prog_cache, kprog);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}