netdev - Re: Using the aesni generic gcm(aes) aead in atomic context

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: <20171031091345.GF30509@secunet.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:13:45 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:     Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sd@...asysnail.net" <sd@...asysnail.net>,
        "Boris Pismenny" <borisp@...lanox.com>,
        "davejwatson@...com" <davejwatson@...com>
Subject: Re: Using the aesni generic gcm(aes) aead in atomic context

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 03:44:38PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:39:08AM +0000, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> > 
> > I think we should consider having a synchronous implementation that falls back
> > to integer implementation when the FPU is not available.
> > This would spare the users from having to handle the asynchronous case.
> > 
> > Hopefully the situation where the FPU is not available is rare enough 
> > So it won't hurt the performance too much.
> 
> For your intended use case I think async processing should work just
> fine as it does for IPsec.

I think Ilya talks about the case where the TLS crypto is intended
to be offloaded to a NIC. In this case we need a software crypto
fallback e.g. if a packet got rerouted to a device that does not
support crypto offloading. For IPsec, we catch these cases in
validate_xmit_skb() either with the ESP GSO handler, or in the non
GSO case with validate_xmit_xfrm(). We currently request for
a sync algorithm to avoid the async handling for this case.

Allowing for async crypto would require some way to handle
async returnes or the -EBUSY case from the crypto layer inside
of a qdisc. Also, in the GSO case it is not clear how to unwind
the GSO call stack on a async return.

I had a discussion with davem at the netfilter workshop about
this. Based on this discussion, I prepared some patches that
I hope to be (RFC) ready until the netdev2.2 next week.