[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJHCu1+YynzroRkfZC9ki0b=RwiDOoOJB0S97uUVWSxLgac74A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:38:18 +0200
From: Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.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
2018-04-09 16:35 GMT+02:00 David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>:
> From: Salvatore Mesoraca
>> Sent: 09 April 2018 14:55
>>
>> v2:
>> As suggested by Herbert Xu, the blocksize and alignmask checks
>> have been moved to crypto_check_alg.
>> So, now, all the other separate checks are not necessary.
>> Also, the defines have been moved to include/crypto/algapi.h.
>>
>> v1:
>> As suggested by Laura Abbott[1], I'm resending my patch with
>> MAX_BLOCKSIZE and MAX_ALIGNMASK defined in an header, so they
>> can be used in other places.
>> I took this opportunity to deal with some other VLAs not
>> handled in the old patch.
>
> If the constants are visible they need better names.
> Maybe CRYPTO_MAX_xxx.
You are right, in fact I renamed them, but forget to write about this
in the change log.
The new names look like MAX_CIPHER_*.
> 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.
Thank you,
Salvatore
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.
