[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CY4PR04MB375103F66A8064B0EAF8946BE7950@CY4PR04MB3751.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:46:33 +0000
From: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
CC: Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>,
"snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"kernel-team@...udflare.com" <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
"dm-crypt@...ut.de" <dm-crypt@...ut.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [dm-crypt] [RFC PATCH 1/1] Add DM_CRYPT_FORCE_INLINE
flag to dm-crypt target
On 2020/06/24 14:27, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 05:21:24AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>>> @@ -1458,13 +1459,18 @@ static void crypt_alloc_req_skcipher(struct crypt_config *cc,
>>>>
>>>> skcipher_request_set_tfm(ctx->r.req, cc->cipher_tfm.tfms[key_index]);
>>>>
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * Use REQ_MAY_BACKLOG so a cipher driver internally backlogs
>>>> - * requests if driver request queue is full.
>>>> - */
>>>> - skcipher_request_set_callback(ctx->r.req,
>>>> - CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_BACKLOG,
>>>> - kcryptd_async_done, dmreq_of_req(cc, ctx->r.req));
>>>> + if (test_bit(DM_CRYPT_FORCE_INLINE, &cc->flags))
>>>> + /* make sure we zero important fields of the request */
>>>> + skcipher_request_set_callback(ctx->r.req,
>>>> + 0, NULL, NULL);
>>>> + else
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Use REQ_MAY_BACKLOG so a cipher driver internally backlogs
>>>> + * requests if driver request queue is full.
>>>> + */
>>>> + skcipher_request_set_callback(ctx->r.req,
>>>> + CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_BACKLOG,
>>>> + kcryptd_async_done, dmreq_of_req(cc, ctx->r.req));
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This looks wrong. Unless type=0 and mask=CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC are passed to
>>> crypto_alloc_skcipher(), the skcipher implementation can still be asynchronous,
>>> in which case providing a callback is required.
>>>
>>> Do you intend that the "force_inline" option forces the use of a synchronous
>>> skcipher (alongside the other things it does)? Or should it still allow
>>> asynchronous ones?
>>>
>>> We may not actually have a choice in that matter, since xts-aes-aesni has the
>>> CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC bit set (as I mentioned) despite being synchronous in most
>>> cases; thus, the crypto API won't give you it if you ask for a synchronous
>>> cipher. So I think you still need to allow async skciphers? That means a
>>> callback is still always required.
>>
>> Arg... So it means that some skciphers will not be OK at all for SMR writes. I
>> was not aware of these differences (tested with aes-xts-plain64 only). The ugly
>> way to support async ciphers would be to just wait inline for the crypto API to
>> complete using a completion for instance. But that is very ugly. Back to
>> brainstorming, and need to learn more about the crypto API...
>>
>
> It's easy to wait for crypto API requests to complete if you need to --
> just use crypto_wait_req().
OK. Thanks for the information. I will look into this and the performance
implications. A quick grep shows that a lot of different accelerators for
different architectures have CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC set. So definitely something that
needs to be checked for SMR, and for Ignat inline patch.
> We do this in fs/crypto/, for example. (Not many people are using fscrypt with
> crypto API based accelerators, so there hasn't yet been much need to support the
> complexity of issuing multiple async crypto requests like dm-crypt supports.)
Zonefs fscrypt support is on my to do list too :)
Thanks !
>
> - Eric
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
Powered by blists - more mailing lists