linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH crypto-stable] crypto: arch/lib - limit simd usage to PAGE

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: <CAHmME9qXy4X3GtCtt5_1+KTxTXd6+nfhvE_c8Xn6_iJdRWhQmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 13:51:11 -0600
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH crypto-stable] crypto: arch/lib - limit simd usage to
 PAGE_SIZE chunks

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 09:32, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > Seems this should just be a 'while' loop?
> > >
> > >         while (bytes) {
> > >                 unsigned int todo = min_t(unsigned int, PAGE_SIZE, bytes);
> > >
> > >                 kernel_neon_begin();
> > >                 chacha_doneon(state, dst, src, todo, nrounds);
> > >                 kernel_neon_end();
> > >
> > >                 bytes -= todo;
> > >                 src += todo;
> > >                 dst += todo;
> > >         }
> >
> > The for(;;) is how it's done elsewhere in the kernel (that this patch
> > doesn't touch), because then we can break out of the loop before
> > having to increment src and dst unnecessarily. Likely a pointless
> > optimization as probably the compiler can figure out how to avoid
> > that. But maybe it can't. If you have a strong preference, I can
> > reactor everything to use `while (bytes)`, but if you don't care,
> > let's keep this as-is. Opinion?
> >
>
> Since we're bikeshedding, I'd prefer 'do { } while (bytes);' here,
> given that bytes is guaranteed to be non-zero before we enter the
> loop. But in any case, I'd prefer avoiding for(;;) or while(1) where
> we can.

Okay, will do-while it up for v2.