On 7/6/26 11:43, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
Support CPACF pcc subfunctions PCC-Compute-XTS-Parameter-AES-128
and PCC-Compute-XTS-Parameter-AES-128 but only for the special
typo(?): --> PCC-Compute-XTS-Parameter-AES-256
case block sequential number is 0. However, this covers the s390
AES XTS implementation in the Linux kernel and Libica and thus
also Opencryptoki clear key via Libica.
Signed-off-by: Harald Freudenberger <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Holger Dengler <[email protected]>
Ordering? (T-b first, then S-o-b). See my comment below.
Reviewed-by: Holger Dengler <[email protected]>
---
target/s390x/gen-features.c | 2 +
target/s390x/tcg/cpacf.h | 2 +
target/s390x/tcg/cpacf_aes.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
target/s390x/tcg/crypto_helper.c | 20 ++++++++++
4 files changed, 87 insertions(+)
[...]
diff --git a/target/s390x/tcg/cpacf_aes.c b/target/s390x/tcg/cpacf_aes.c
index 3d6aa19df2..f41b7dc541 100644
--- a/target/s390x/tcg/cpacf_aes.c
+++ b/target/s390x/tcg/cpacf_aes.c
@@ -290,3 +290,66 @@ int cpacf_aes_ctr(CPUS390XState *env, const int mmu_idx,
uintptr_t ra,
return !len ? 0 : 3;
}
+
+int cpacf_aes_pcc(CPUS390XState *env, const int mmu_idx, uintptr_t ra,
+ uint64_t param_addr, uint8_t fc)
+{
+ uint8_t key[32], tweak[AES_BLOCK_SIZE], buf[AES_BLOCK_SIZE];
+ const MemOpIdx oi = make_memop_idx(MO_8, mmu_idx);
+ int keysize, i;
+ uint64_t addr;
+ AES_KEY exkey;
+
+ switch (fc) {
+ case CPACF_PCC_XTS_AES_128:
+ keysize = 16;
+ break;
+ case CPACF_PCC_XTS_AES_256:
+ keysize = 32;
+ break;
+ default:
+ g_assert_not_reached();
+ }
+
+ /* fetch block sequence nr from param block into buf */
+ for (i = 0; i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE; i++) {
+ addr = wrap_address(env, param_addr + keysize + AES_BLOCK_SIZE + i);
+ buf[i] = cpu_ldb_mmu(env, addr, oi, ra);
+ }
+
+ /* is the block sequence nr 0 ? */
+ for (i = 0; i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE && !buf[i]; i++) {
+ ;
+ }
+ if (i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE) {
+ /* no, sorry handling of non zero block sequence is not implemented */
+ tcg_s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_SPECIFICATION, ra);
+ return 1;
+ }
Why not
for (i = 0; i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE && !buf[i]; i++);
if (i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE) {
...
Or would that be against the coding guidelines?
I personally would prefer the following, because it is more obvious. But
your solution also works, so feel free to change it or leave it as is.
for (i = 0; i < AES_BLOCK_SIZE; i++) {
if (buf[i]) {
/*
* no, sorry handling of non zero block sequence is not
* implemented
*/
tcg_s390_program_interrupt(env, PGM_SPECIFICATION, ra);
return 1;
}
}
IMO, it is easier to read.
[...]
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards
Holger Dengler
