On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:28 AM Eric Biggers <ebigg...@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi Ondrej,
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:42:38AM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > This patch rewrites the tweak computation to a slightly simpler method
> > that performs less bswaps. Based on performance measurements the new
> > code seems to provide slightly better performance than the old one.
> >
> > PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS (x86_64)
> > Performed using: https://gitlab.com/omos/linux-crypto-bench
> > Crypto driver used: lrw(ecb-aes-aesni)
> >
> > Before:
> > ALGORITHM KEY (b) DATA (B) TIME ENC (ns) TIME DEC (ns)
> > lrw(aes) 256 64 204 286
> > lrw(aes) 320 64 227 203
> > lrw(aes) 384 64 208 204
> > lrw(aes) 256 512 441 439
> > lrw(aes) 320 512 456 455
> > lrw(aes) 384 512 469 483
> > lrw(aes) 256 4096 2136 2190
> > lrw(aes) 320 4096 2161 2213
> > lrw(aes) 384 4096 2295 2369
> > lrw(aes) 256 16384 7692 7868
> > lrw(aes) 320 16384 8230 8691
> > lrw(aes) 384 16384 8971 8813
> > lrw(aes) 256 32768 15336 15560
> > lrw(aes) 320 32768 16410 16346
> > lrw(aes) 384 32768 18023 17465
> >
> > After:
> > 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
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosn...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > crypto/lrw.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/crypto/lrw.c b/crypto/lrw.c
> > index 393a782679c7..b4f30b6f16d6 100644
> > --- a/crypto/lrw.c
> > +++ b/crypto/lrw.c
> > @@ -120,30 +120,19 @@ static int setkey(struct crypto_skcipher *parent,
> > const u8 *key,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline void inc(be128 *iv)
> > +static int next_index(u32 *counter)
> > {
> > - be64_add_cpu(&iv->b, 1);
> > - if (!iv->b)
> > - be64_add_cpu(&iv->a, 1);
> > -}
> > -
> > -/* this returns the number of consequative 1 bits starting
> > - * from the right, get_index128(00 00 00 00 00 00 ... 00 00 10 FB) = 2 */
> > -static inline int get_index128(be128 *block)
> > -{
> > - int x;
> > - __be32 *p = (__be32 *) block;
> > -
> > - for (p += 3, x = 0; x < 128; p--, x += 32) {
> > - u32 val = be32_to_cpup(p);
> > -
> > - if (!~val)
> > - continue;
> > + int i, res = 0;
> >
> > - return x + ffz(val);
> > + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> > + if (counter[i] + 1 != 0) {
> > + res += ffz(counter[i]++);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + counter[i] = 0;
> > + res += 32;
> > }
> > -
> > - return x;
> > + return res;
> > }
>
> This looks good, but can you leave the comment that says it returns the number
> of leading 1's in the counter? And now that it increments the counter too.
Good idea, will do.
>
> Actually, I think it's wrong in the case where the counter is all 1's and
> wraps
> around. It will XOR with ->mulinc[128], which is off the end of the array,
> instead of the correct value of ->mulinc[127]... But that's an existing bug
> :-/
Oh, right, good catch!
> (If you do want to fix that, please do it in a separate patch, probably
> preceding this one in the series, and add a test vector that covers it...)
Yeah, will do that.
>
> >
> > static int post_crypt(struct skcipher_request *req)
> > @@ -209,8 +198,9 @@ static int pre_crypt(struct skcipher_request *req)
> > struct scatterlist *sg;
> > unsigned cryptlen;
> > unsigned offset;
> > - be128 *iv;
> > bool more;
> > + __u32 *iv;
> > + u32 counter[4];
>
> 'iv' should be '__be32 *', not '__u32 *'.
Yep.
>
> > int err;
> >
> > subreq = &rctx->subreq;
> > @@ -227,6 +217,11 @@ static int pre_crypt(struct skcipher_request *req)
> > err = skcipher_walk_virt(&w, subreq, false);
> > iv = w.iv;
> >
> > + counter[0] = be32_to_cpu(iv[3]);
> > + counter[1] = be32_to_cpu(iv[2]);
> > + counter[2] = be32_to_cpu(iv[1]);
> > + counter[3] = be32_to_cpu(iv[0]);
> > +
> > while (w.nbytes) {
> > unsigned int avail = w.nbytes;
> > be128 *wsrc;
> > @@ -242,10 +237,16 @@ static int pre_crypt(struct skcipher_request *req)
> > /* T <- I*Key2, using the optimization
> > * discussed in the specification */
> > be128_xor(&rctx->t, &rctx->t,
> > - &ctx->mulinc[get_index128(iv)]);
> > - inc(iv);
> > + &ctx->mulinc[next_index(counter)]);
> > } while ((avail -= bs) >= bs);
> >
> > + if (w.nbytes == w.total) {
> > + iv[0] = cpu_to_be32(counter[3]);
> > + iv[1] = cpu_to_be32(counter[2]);
> > + iv[2] = cpu_to_be32(counter[1]);
> > + iv[3] = cpu_to_be32(counter[0]);
> > + }
> > +
> > err = skcipher_walk_done(&w, avail);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
> - Eric
Thanks,
--
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
