On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:51 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:42:39AM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > > This patch simplifies the LRW template to recompute the LRW tweaks from > > scratch in the second pass and thus also removes the need to allocate a > > dynamic buffer using kmalloc(). > > > > As discussed at [1], the use of kmalloc causes deadlocks with dm-crypt. > > > > PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS (x86_64) > > Performed using: https://gitlab.com/omos/linux-crypto-bench > > Crypto driver used: lrw(ecb-aes-aesni) > > > > The results show that the new code has about the same performance as the > > old code. For 512-byte message it seems to be even slightly faster, but > > that might be just noise. > > > > Before: > > ALGORITHM KEY (b) DATA (B) TIME ENC (ns) TIME DEC (ns) > > lrw(aes) 256 64 200 203 > > lrw(aes) 320 64 202 204 > > lrw(aes) 384 64 204 205 > > lrw(aes) 256 512 415 415 > > lrw(aes) 320 512 432 440 > > lrw(aes) 384 512 449 451 > > lrw(aes) 256 4096 1838 1995 > > lrw(aes) 320 4096 2123 1980 > > lrw(aes) 384 4096 2100 2119 > > lrw(aes) 256 16384 7183 6954 > > lrw(aes) 320 16384 7844 7631 > > lrw(aes) 384 16384 8256 8126 > > lrw(aes) 256 32768 14772 14484 > > lrw(aes) 320 32768 15281 15431 > > lrw(aes) 384 32768 16469 16293 > > > > After: > > ALGORITHM KEY (b) DATA (B) TIME ENC (ns) TIME DEC (ns) > > lrw(aes) 256 64 197 196 > > lrw(aes) 320 64 200 197 > > lrw(aes) 384 64 203 199 > > lrw(aes) 256 512 385 380 > > lrw(aes) 320 512 401 395 > > lrw(aes) 384 512 415 415 > > lrw(aes) 256 4096 1869 1846 > > lrw(aes) 320 4096 2080 1981 > > lrw(aes) 384 4096 2160 2109 > > lrw(aes) 256 16384 7077 7127 > > lrw(aes) 320 16384 7807 7766 > > lrw(aes) 384 16384 8108 8357 > > lrw(aes) 256 32768 14111 14454 > > lrw(aes) 320 32768 15268 15082 > > lrw(aes) 384 32768 16581 16250 > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/23/1315 > > > > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > crypto/lrw.c | 280 ++++++++++----------------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 229 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/crypto/lrw.c b/crypto/lrw.c > > index b4f30b6f16d6..d5d2fba9af59 100644 > > --- a/crypto/lrw.c > > +++ b/crypto/lrw.c > > @@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ > > #include <crypto/b128ops.h> > > #include <crypto/gf128mul.h> > > > > -#define LRW_BUFFER_SIZE 128u > > - > > #define LRW_BLOCK_SIZE 16 > > > > struct priv { > > @@ -56,19 +54,7 @@ struct priv { > > }; > > > > struct rctx { > > - be128 buf[LRW_BUFFER_SIZE / sizeof(be128)]; > > - > > - be128 t; > > - > > - be128 *ext; > > - > > - struct scatterlist srcbuf[2]; > > - struct scatterlist dstbuf[2]; > > - struct scatterlist *src; > > - struct scatterlist *dst; > > - > > - unsigned int left; > > - > > + be128 t, orig_iv; > > struct skcipher_request subreq; > > }; > > > > @@ -135,86 +121,31 @@ static int next_index(u32 *counter) > > return res; > > } > > > > -static int post_crypt(struct skcipher_request *req) > > +/* > > + * We compute the tweak masks twice (both before and after the ECB encryption or > > + * decryption) to avoid having to allocate a temporary buffer and/or make > > + * mutliple calls to the 'ecb(..)' instance, which usually would be slower than > > + * just doing the gf128mul_x_ble() calls again. > > + */ > > next_index(), not gf128mul_x_ble(). Fixed for next revision, thanks. > > > +static void init_crypt(struct skcipher_request *req) > > { > > + struct priv *ctx = crypto_skcipher_ctx(crypto_skcipher_reqtfm(req)); > > struct rctx *rctx = skcipher_request_ctx(req); > > - struct skcipher_request *subreq; > > + struct skcipher_request *subreq = &rctx->subreq; > > > > - subreq = &rctx->subreq; > > - > > - while (!err && rctx->left) { > > - err = pre_crypt(req) ?: > > - crypto_skcipher_decrypt(subreq) ?: > > - post_crypt(req); > > + skcipher_request_set_tfm(subreq, ctx->child); > > + skcipher_request_set_callback(subreq, req->base.flags, crypt_done, req); > > + skcipher_request_set_crypt(subreq, req->dst, req->dst, > > + req->cryptlen, &rctx->orig_iv); > > Can you leave a comment that the 'iv' of 'subreq' is set to 'orig_iv' is set so > that it's available in xor_tweak_post()? My first thought was that the 'iv' > should be NULL as this same request is also used for the ECB step. > > Or alternatively, you could get the IV directly from 'rctx->orig_iv' in > xor_tweak(), and only save the incremented IV back to 'walk.iv' on the first > pass. Then subreq->iv would be left NULL. Good point, now that we have the explicit first/second pass distinction this should be quite easy to do and will be also cleaner. Thanks, -- Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com> Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
