Thread (146 messages) 146 messages, 16 authors, 2018-11-13

Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/23] zinc: ChaCha20 ARM and ARM64 implementations

From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: 2018-09-26 17:23:58
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-crypto, lkml

On Sep 26, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:21 PM Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:
Are, is what you’re saying that the Zinc chacha20 functions should call simd_relax() every n bytes automatically for some reasonable value of n?  If so, seems sensible, except that some care might be needed to make sure they interact with preemption correctly.

What I mean is: the public Zinc entry points should either be callable in an atomic context or they should not be.  I think this should be checked at runtime in an appropriate place with an __might_sleep or similar.  Or simd_relax should learn to *not* schedule if the result of preempt_enable() leaves it atomic. (And the latter needs to be done in a way that works even on non-preempt kernels, and I don’t remember whether that’s possible.). And this should happen regardless of how many bytes are processed. IOW, calling into Zinc should be equally not atomic-safe for 100 bytes and for 10 MB.
I'm not sure this is actually a problem. Namely:

preempt_disable();
kernel_fpu_begin();
kernel_fpu_end();
schedule(); <--- bug!

Calling kernel_fpu_end() disables preemption, but AFAIK, preemption
enabling/disabling is recursive, so kernel_fpu_end's use of
preempt_disable won't actually do anything until the outer preempt
enable is called:

preempt_disable();
kernel_fpu_begin();
kernel_fpu_end();
preempt_enable();
schedule(); <--- works!

Or am I missing some more subtle point?
No, I think you’re right. I was mid-remembering precisely how simd_relax() worked.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help