linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 23/28] algif: Remove hash

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: <3763055.1679676470@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 16:47:50 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        jlayton@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 23/28] algif: Remove hash_sendpage*()

Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:

> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Remove hash_sendpage*() and use hash_sendmsg() as the latter seems to just
> > use the source pages directly anyway.
> 
> ...
> 
> > -       if (!(flags & MSG_MORE)) {
> > -               if (ctx->more)
> > -                       err = crypto_ahash_finup(&ctx->req);
> > -               else
> > -                       err = crypto_ahash_digest(&ctx->req);
> 
> You've just removed the optimised path from user-space to
> finup/digest.  You need to add them back to sendmsg if you
> want to eliminate sendpage.

I must be missing something, I think.  What's particularly optimal about the
code in hash_sendpage() but not hash_sendmsg()?  Is it that the former uses
finup/digest, but the latter ony does update+final?

Also, looking at:

	if (!ctx->more) {
		if ((msg->msg_flags & MSG_MORE))
			hash_free_result(sk, ctx);

how is ctx->more meant to be interpreted?  I'm guessing it means that we're
continuing to the previous op.  But we do we need to free any old result if
MSG_MORE is set, but not if it isn't?

David