[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200910122248.GA22506@Red>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:22:48 +0200
From: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] crypto: sun4i-ss - Fix sparse endianness markers
On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 03:00:36PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 06:00:29PM +0200, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> >
> > The put_unaligned should be _le32.
> >
> > This fix the modprobe tcrypt fail.
>
> Thanks. Yes the original code was correct.
>
> ---8<---
> This patch also fixes the incorrect endianness markings in the
> sun4i-ss driver. It should have no effect in the genereated code.
>
> Instead of using cpu_to_Xe32 followed by a memcpy, this patch
> converts the final hash write to use put_unaligned_X instead.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/allwinner/sun4i-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c b/drivers/crypto/allwinner/sun4i-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c
> index dc35edd90034..1dff48558f53 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/allwinner/sun4i-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/allwinner/sun4i-ss/sun4i-ss-hash.c
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> * You could find the datasheet in Documentation/arm/sunxi.rst
> */
> #include "sun4i-ss.h"
> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
>
> /* This is a totally arbitrary value */
> @@ -196,7 +197,7 @@ static int sun4i_hash(struct ahash_request *areq)
> struct sg_mapping_iter mi;
> int in_r, err = 0;
> size_t copied = 0;
> - __le32 wb = 0;
> + u32 wb = 0;
>
> dev_dbg(ss->dev, "%s %s bc=%llu len=%u mode=%x wl=%u h0=%0x",
> __func__, crypto_tfm_alg_name(areq->base.tfm),
> @@ -408,7 +409,7 @@ static int sun4i_hash(struct ahash_request *areq)
>
> nbw = op->len - 4 * nwait;
> if (nbw) {
> - wb = cpu_to_le32(*(u32 *)(op->buf + nwait * 4));
> + wb = le32_to_cpup((__le32 *)(op->buf + nwait * 4));
> wb &= GENMASK((nbw * 8) - 1, 0);
>
> op->byte_count += nbw;
> @@ -417,7 +418,7 @@ static int sun4i_hash(struct ahash_request *areq)
>
> /* write the remaining bytes of the nbw buffer */
> wb |= ((1 << 7) << (nbw * 8));
> - bf[j++] = le32_to_cpu(wb);
> + ((__le32 *)bf)[j++] = cpu_to_le32(wb);
>
> /*
> * number of space to pad to obtain 64o minus 8(size) minus 4 (final 1)
> @@ -479,16 +480,16 @@ static int sun4i_hash(struct ahash_request *areq)
> /* Get the hash from the device */
> if (op->mode == SS_OP_SHA1) {
> for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
> + v = readl(ss->base + SS_MD0 + i * 4);
> if (ss->variant->sha1_in_be)
> - v = cpu_to_le32(readl(ss->base + SS_MD0 + i * 4));
> + put_unaligned_le32(v, areq->result + i * 4);
> else
> - v = cpu_to_be32(readl(ss->base + SS_MD0 + i * 4));
> - memcpy(areq->result + i * 4, &v, 4);
> + put_unaligned_be32(v, areq->result + i * 4);
> }
> } else {
> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> - v = cpu_to_le32(readl(ss->base + SS_MD0 + i * 4));
> - memcpy(areq->result + i * 4, &v, 4);
> + v = readl(ss->base + SS_MD0 + i * 4);
> + put_unaligned_le32(v, areq->result + i * 4);
> }
> }
>
I get some md5 error on both A20+BE:
alg: ahash: md5 test failed (wrong result) on test vector \"random: psize=129 ksize=0\", cfg=\"random: inplace use_finup nosimd src_divs=[<reimport,nosimd>85.99%@...99, 5.85%@+30, <reimport>0.96%@+25, <reimport,nosimd>5.9%@...63, <flush,nosimd>2.11%@...50] iv_offset=2 key_offset=43\"
and A33+BE:
[ 84.469045] alg: ahash: md5 test failed (wrong result) on test vector \"random: psize=322 ksize=0\", cfg=\"random: inplace may_sleep use_finup src_divs=[<reimport>99.1%@...68, <reimport>0.88%@...gnmask+3630, 0.11%@...03] iv_offset=33\"
+[ 84.469074] need:35966fc8 b31ea266 2bf064e9 f20f40ad
+[ 84.469084] have:e29e4491 f3b6effc fa366691 00e04bd9
Thoses errors are random. (1 boot out of 2)
The ahash-md5-sun4i-ss is set as "selftest: passed" and I didnt see any failling/absent test in /proc/crypto
So what is this md5 which fail ?
I am still investigating and will try on more platform.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists