On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:53:11AM -0700, Dave Watson wrote:
> On 07/11/17 08:29 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > Sorry for replying to old mail...
> > > +int tls_set_sw_offload(struct sock *sk, struct tls_context *ctx)
> > > +{
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (!sw_ctx->aead_send) {
> > > + sw_ctx->aead_send = crypto_alloc_aead("gcm(aes)", 0, 0);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(sw_ctx->aead_send)) {
> > > + rc = PTR_ERR(sw_ctx->aead_send);
> > > + sw_ctx->aead_send = NULL;
> > > + goto free_rec_seq;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > When I look on how you allocate the aead transformation, it seems
> > that you should either register an asynchronous callback with
> > aead_request_set_callback(), or request for a synchronous algorithm.
> >
> > Otherwise you will crash on an asynchronous crypto return, no?
>
> The intention is for it to be synchronous, and gather directly from
> userspace buffers. It looks like calling
> crypto_alloc_aead("gcm(aes)", 0, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC) is the correct way
> to request synchronous algorithms only?
Yes, but then you loose the aes-ni based algorithms because they are
asynchronous. If you want to have good crypto performance, it is
better to implement the asynchronous callbacks.
>
> > Also, it seems that you have your scatterlists on a per crypto
> > transformation base istead of per crypto request. Is this intentional?
>
> We hold the socket lock and only one crypto op can happen at a time,
> so we reuse the scatterlists.
This is OK as long as the crypto happens synchronous. But as said above,
I think this is not what you want.
