netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] crypto: Introduce crypto

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:   Mon, 9 Jan 2023 21:11:01 +0000
From:   Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Bob Gilligan <gilligan@...sta.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Salam Noureddine <noureddine@...sta.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] crypto: Introduce crypto_pool

On 1/9/23 20:59, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> Thanks for taking a look and your review,
> 
> On 1/7/23 01:53, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
[..]
>>> +static int crypto_pool_scratch_alloc(void)
>>
>> This isn't called by anything in this patch..
>> crypto_pool_alloc_ahash() should call it I'm guessing?
> 
> Ah, this is little historical left-over: in the beginning, I used
> constant-sized area as "scratch" buffer, the way TCP-MD5 does it.
> Later, while converting users to crypto_pool, I found that it would be
> helpful to support simple resizing as users have different size
> requirement to the temporary buffer, i.e. looking at xfrm_ipcomp, if
> later it would be converted to use the same API, rather than its own:
> IPCOMP_SCRATCH_SIZE is huge (which may help to save quite some memory if
> shared with other crypto_pool users: as the buffer is as well protected
> by bh-disabled section, the usage pattern is quite the same).
> 
> In patch 2 I rewrote it for crypto_pool_reserve_scratch(). The purpose
> of patch 2 was to only add dynamic up-sizing of this buffer to make it
> easier to review the change. So, here are 2 options:
> - I can move scratch area allocation/resizing/freeing to patch2 for v3
> - Or I can keep patch 2 for only adding the resizing functionality, but
> in patch 1 make crypto_pool_scratch_alloc() non-static and to the header
> API.
> 
> What would you prefer?

Taking the question off: in v3 I'll provide "size" as another argument
in patch 2 (the way you suggested it in review for patch 2). That way
dynamic allocation would be still separated in patch 2.

Thanks,
          Dmitry