linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] crypto: engine

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:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 13:05:32 +0200
From:   Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@....com>
Cc:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Silvano Di Ninno <silvano.dininno@....com>,
        Franck Lenormand <franck.lenormand@....com>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] crypto: engine - support for parallel requests

On 3/12/2020 5:26 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 12:51:32AM +0200, Iuliana Prodan wrote:
>>
>>  	ret = enginectx->op.do_one_request(engine, async_req);
>> -	if (ret) {
>> -		dev_err(engine->dev, "Failed to do one request from queue: %d\n", ret);
>> -		goto req_err;
>> +	can_enq_more = ret;
>> +	if (can_enq_more < 0) {
>> +		dev_err(engine->dev, "Failed to do one request from queue: %d\n",
>> +			ret);
>> +		goto req_err_1;
>> +	}
> 
> So this now includes the case of the hardware queue being full
> and the request needs to be queued until space opens up again.
I see no difference when compared with existing implementation:
in both cases failing the transfer from SW queue to HW queue means
losing the request irrespective of the error code returned by .do_one_request.

This doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

> In this case, we should not do dev_err.  So you need to be able
> to distinguish between the hardware queue being full vs. a real
> fatal error on the request (e.g., out-of-memory or some hardware
> failure).
> 
Yes, in case of -ENOSPC (HW queue full) the request should be put back
in the SW queue.

Thanks,
Horia