linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 10/12] crypto: x86/aesni - Use the proper data type in struct aesni_xts

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f1093780-cdda-35ec-3ef1-e5fab4139bef@intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 4 Jun 2023 21:41:25 -0700
From:   "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        <dm-devel@...hat.com>, <elliott@....com>, <gmazyland@...il.com>,
        <luto@...nel.org>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <bp@...en8.de>, <mingo@...nel.org>,
        <x86@...nel.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <ardb@...nel.org>,
        <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <bernie.keany@...el.com>,
        <charishma1.gairuboyina@...el.com>,
        <lalithambika.krishnakumar@...el.com>, <nhuck@...gle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/12] crypto: x86/aesni - Use the proper data type in
 struct aesni_xts_ctx

On 6/4/2023 7:46 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 
> IMO the issue is that your patch makes the code (including the XTS code)
> inconsistent because it makes it use a mix of both approaches: it aligns each
> field individually, *and* it aligns the ctx up-front. 

But, the code did this already:

common_rfc4106_set_key()
-> aesni_rfc4106_gcm_ctx_get(aead) 	// align ->ctx
-> aes_set_key_common()
    -> aes_ctx()				// here, this aligns again

And generic_gcmaes_set_key() as well.

Hmm, maybe a separate patch can spell out this issue more clearly for 
the record, no?

Thanks,
Chang