netdev - Re: Flaw in "random32: update the net random state on interrupt and activity"

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: <57399571-280E-48CF-8F72-516F7178748C@amacapital.net>
Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:16:20 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Marc Plumb <lkml.mplumb@...il.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amit Klein <aksecurity@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Flaw in "random32: update the net random state on interrupt and activity"



> On Aug 7, 2020, at 12:57 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:33 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> 
>> No one said we have to do only one ChaCha20 block per slow path hit.
> 
> Sure, doing more might be better for amortizing the cost.
> 
> But you have to be very careful about latency spikes. I would be
> *really* nervous about doing a whole page at a time, when this is
> called from routines that literally expect it to be less than 50
> cycles.
> 
> So I would seriously suggest you look at a much smaller buffer. Maybe
> not a single block, but definitely not multiple kB either.
> 
> Maybe something like 2 cachelines might be ok, but there's a reason
> the current code only works with 16 bytes (or whatever) and only does
> simple operations with no looping.
> 
> That's why I think you might look at a single double-round ChaCha20
> instead. Maybe do it for two blocks - by the time you wrap around,
> you'll have done more than a full ChaCaa20.
> 
> That would imnsho *much* better than doing some big block, and have
> huge latency spikes and flush a large portion of your L1 when they
> happen. Nasty nasty behavior.
> 
> I really think the whole "we can amortize it with bigger blocks" is
> complete and utter garbage. It's classic "benchmarketing" crap.
> 

I think this will come down to actual measurements :). If the cost of one block of cache-cold ChaCha20 is 100 cycles of actual computation and 200 cycles of various cache misses, then let’s do more than one block.

I’ll get something working and we’ll see.