From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833A7C46460 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 02:20:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343CB223B5 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 02:20:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 343CB223B5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726716AbeHJEsX (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:48:23 -0400 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:13309 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725198AbeHJEsW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:48:22 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Aug 2018 19:20:37 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,217,1531810800"; d="scan'208";a="253555370" Received: from megha-z97x-ud7-th.sc.intel.com (HELO [143.183.85.162]) ([143.183.85.162]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2018 19:20:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1533868833.19050.19.camel@megha-Z97X-UD7-TH> Subject: Re: [RFC] crypto: Remove mcryptd From: Megha Dey To: Herbert Xu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 19:40:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180808095621.h7ecacftx5ofe5ki@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <1526089453-6542-1-git-send-email-megha.dey@linux.intel.com> <20180720035325.m5tzeuqsfej3y6wd@gondor.apana.org.au> <1532651107.19157.24.camel@megha-Z97X-UD7-TH> <20180808095621.h7ecacftx5ofe5ki@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2018-08-08 at 17:56 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 05:25:07PM -0700, Megha Dey wrote: > > > > 1. On the existing algorithms covered in aesni_intel-glue.c (eg: > > __cbc-aes-aesni), 3 algorithms are registered in /proc/crypto: > > > > __cbc(aes) > > cryptd(__cbc-aes-aesni)--> registered via cryptd_create_skcipher > > > > cbc(aes) > > cbc-aes-aesni --> registered via simd_skcipher_create_compat > > > > __cbc(aes) > > __cbc-aes-aesni --> registered as the internal algorithm > > > > I would want to know why do we need the cryptd(__cbc-aes-aesni) > > algorithm at all. I do not see any of the associated setkey, encrypt or > > decrypt functions getting called during the selftest or while running > > tcrypt. I just see the simd_(setkey, encrypt, decrypt) functions > > directly called the inner algorithms. However, if I remove the cryptd > > algorithm, none of the algorithms are registered. > > The simd functions are the fast path where you are running in a > context where SIMD can be used directly. cryptd is the slow path > where we defer the work to a work queue. Hi Herbert, Thank you for the clarification. I seem to have gotten things to work (i.e remove mcryptd layer). I have tried this with the skcipher on top of my previously posted patches for the aes-cbc-mb multibuffer algorithm since the simd wrappers already exist for it. I am working on extending to hashes, sorry for the confusion. I would like to get your approval first on the changes I have made in the cryptd layer: 1. @@ -495,7 +534,10 @@ static void cryptd_skcipher_encrypt(struct crypto_async_request *base, skcipher_request_set_crypt(subreq, req->src, req->dst, req->cryptlen, req->iv); - err = crypto_skcipher_encrypt(subreq); + subreq->base.data = req->base.data; + subreq->base.complete = rctx->complete; + rctx->desc = *subreq; + err = crypto_skcipher_encrypt(&rctx->desc); skcipher_request_zero(subreq); This change is necessary because for the multibuffer algorithms, the inner algorithm needs a pointer to the original request. In the slow path, since we allocate a skcipher_request on the stack, there is no easy way to retrieve the request. In the mcryptd_layer, we had extra logic to store this pointer. 2. Currently, -struct cryptd_skcipher_request_ctx { - crypto_completion_t complete; -}; - For multibuffer algorithms, we need more structure members: +struct cryptd_skcipher_request_ctx { + struct list_head waiter; + crypto_completion_t complete; + struct cryptd_tag tag; + struct skcipher_walk walk; + u8 flag; + int nbytes; + int error; + struct skcipher_request desc; + void *job; + u128 seq_iv; I am not sure if adding the member to the original structure definition is acceptable or I should introduce a new structure. Lastly, for hashes, we have struct cryptd_hash_request_ctx { crypto_completion_t complete; struct shash_desc desc; }; If we were to use this(with the added fields for multibuffer), we should update the shash_desc to ahash_request since we are an async algorithm right? > > > > What you need to do is create an actual simd wrapper with cryptd > > > > This simd wrapper is already present for skcipher right(in simd.c)? > > Assuming we only have ciphers and no hash algorithms, are any changes > > required in these wrappers? > > For skcipher yes they already exist. But this thread was about > hashes. > > Cheers,