[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 16:20:42 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Salvatore Mesoraca' <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, "David S.
Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
"Laura Abbott" <labbott@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] crypto: removing various VLAs
From: Salvatore Mesoraca
> Sent: 09 April 2018 17:38
...
> > You can also do much better than allocating MAX_BLOCKSIZE + MAX_ALIGNMASK
> > bytes by requesting 'long' aligned on-stack memory.
> > The easiest way is to define a union like:
> >
> > union crypto_tmp {
> > u8 buf[CRYPTO_MAX_TMP_BUF];
> > long buf_align;
> > };
> >
> > Then in each function:
> >
> > union tmp crypto_tmp;
> > u8 *keystream = PTR_ALIGN(tmp.buf, alignmask + 1);
> >
> > I think CRYPTO_MAX_TMP_BUF needs to be MAX_BLOCKSIZE + MAX_ALIGNMASK - sizeof (long).
>
> Yeah, that would be nice, it might save us 4-8 bytes on the stack.
> But I was thinking, wouldn't it be even better to do something like:
>
> u8 buf[CRYPTO_MAX_TMP_BUF] __aligned(__alignof__(long));
> u8 *keystream = PTR_ALIGN(buf, alignmask + 1);
>
> In this case __aligned should work, if I'm not missing some other
> subtle GCC caveat.
Thinking further, there is no point aligning the buffer to less than
the maximum alignment allowed - it just adds code.
So you end up with:
#define MAX_STACK_ALIGN __alignof__(long) /* Largest type the compiler can align on stack */
#define CRYPTO_MAX_TMP_BUF (MAX_BLOCKSIZE + MAX_ALIGNMASK + 1 - MAX_STACK_ALIGN)
u8 buf[CRYPTO_MAX_TMP_BUF] __aligned(MAX_STACK_ALIGN);
u8 *keystream = PTR_ALIGN(buf, MAX_ALIGNMASK + 1);
The last two lines could be put into a #define of their own so that the 'call sites'
don't need to know the gory details of how the buffer is defined.
In principle you could just have:
u8 keystream[MAX_BLOCKSIZE] __aligned(MAX_ALIGNMASK + 1);
But that will go wrong if the stack alignment has gone wrong somewhere
and generates a double stack frame if the requested alignment is larger
than the expected stack alignment.
IIRC there is a gcc command line option to enforce stack alignment on
some/all function entry prologues. The gory details are held in some
old brain cells somewhere.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
