netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 06/14] net/tls: Add generic NIC offload infrastructure

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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:08:22 -0700
From:   Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>,
        Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>,
        Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/14] net/tls: Add generic NIC offload
 infrastructure

On 03/19/18 07:45 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> +#define TLS_OFFLOAD_CONTEXT_SIZE                                               \
> +	(ALIGN(sizeof(struct tls_offload_context), sizeof(void *)) +           \
> +	 TLS_DRIVER_STATE_SIZE)
> +
> +	pfrag = sk_page_frag(sk);
> +
> +	/* KTLS_TLS_HEADER_SIZE is not counted as part of the TLS record, and

I think the define is actually TLS_HEADER_SIZE, no KTLS_ prefix

> +	memcpy(ctx->iv + TLS_CIPHER_AES_GCM_128_SALT_SIZE, iv, iv_size);
> +
> +	ctx->rec_seq_size = rec_seq_size;
> +	/* worst case is:
> +	 * MAX_SKB_FRAGS in tls_record_info
> +	 * MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1 in SKB head an frags.

spelling

> +int tls_sw_fallback_init(struct sock *sk,
> +			 struct tls_offload_context *offload_ctx,
> +			 struct tls_crypto_info *crypto_info)
> +{
> +	int rc;
> +	const u8 *key;
> +
> +	offload_ctx->aead_send =
> +	    crypto_alloc_aead("gcm(aes)", 0, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC);

in tls_sw we went with async + crypto_wait_req, any reason to not do
that here?  Otherwise I think you still get the software gcm on x86
instead of aesni without additional changes.

> diff --git a/net/tls/tls_main.c b/net/tls/tls_main.c
> index d824d548447e..e0dface33017 100644
> --- a/net/tls/tls_main.c
> +++ b/net/tls/tls_main.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ enum {
>  enum {
>  	TLS_BASE_TX,
>  	TLS_SW_TX,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TLS_DEVICE
> +	TLS_HW_TX,
> +#endif
>  	TLS_NUM_CONFIG,
>  };

I have posted SW_RX patches, do you forsee any issues with SW_RX + HW_TX?

Thanks