linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/crc32: optimize tail handling for crc32c short inputs

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: <20250306025643.GA1592@sol.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 18:56:43 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/crc32: optimize tail handling for crc32c short inputs

On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:07:39PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:16:08 -0800
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 02:26:53PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > On Tue,  4 Mar 2025 13:32:16 -0800
> > > Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> > > > 
> > > > For handling the 0 <= len < sizeof(unsigned long) bytes left at the end,
> > > > do a 4-2-1 step-down instead of a byte-at-a-time loop.  This allows
> > > > taking advantage of wider CRC instructions.  Note that crc32c-3way.S
> > > > already uses this same optimization too.  
> > > 
> > > An alternative is to add extra zero bytes at the start of the buffer.
> > > They don't affect the crc and just need the first 8 bytes shifted left.
> > > 
> > > I think any non-zero 'crc-in' just needs to be xor'ed over the first
> > > 4 actual data bytes.
> > > (It's over 40 years since I did the maths of CRC.)
> ...
> > > 	David  
> > 
> > Sure, but that only works when len >= sizeof(unsigned long).  Also, the initial
> > CRC sometimes has to be divided between two unsigned longs.
> 
> Yes, I was thinking that might make it a bit more tricky.
> I need to find some spare time :-)
> 
> I wasn't taught anything about using non-carry multiplies either.
> And I can't remember the relevant 'number field' stuff either.
> But (with no-carry maths) I think you have:
> 	crc(n + 1) = (crc(n) + data(n)) * poly
> If data(n+1) and data(n+2) are zero (handled elsewhere) you have:
> 	crc(n + 3) = (((crc(n) + data(n)) * poly) * poly) * poly
> I think that because it is a field this is the same as
> 	crc(n + 3) = (crc(n) + data(n)) * (poly * poly * poly)
> which is just a different crc polynomial.
> If true your '3-way' cpu doesn't have to use big blocks.

Well, to extend by some constant number of bits 'n', you can carryless-multiply
by the polynomial x^n, pre-reduced by the CRC's generator polynomial.  That's
basically how all the CRC implementations using carryless multiplication work.
Take a look at the x86 and riscv optimized code, for example -- especially my
new versions in the crc-next tree at
https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiggers/linux.git/log/?h=crc-next.

But x86 does not have a scalar carryless multiplication instruction, only vector
(PCLMULQDQ).  It does have a scalar CRC instruction, for crc32c *specifically*,
and that is what the code we're discussing is taking advantage of.  Given that
there is overhead associated with using kernel-mode FPU (i.e. vector), it makes
sense to do that, at least on short messages.

On longer messages a PCLMULQDQ-only implementation would work well, but so does
interleaving the crc32c scalar instruction on multiple chunks, which is what is
currently wired up in the kernel via crc32c-3way.S.  And yes, the chunks for
that do not *have* to be long, but you still need to use pclmulqdq instructions
to combine them (unless you do a really slow bit-at-a-time carryless
multiplication), and you have to enter a kernel-mode FPU section to do that.

- Eric