linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
Cc: "David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Martin Willi" <martin@strongswan.org>,
	"WireGuard mailing list" <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>,
	"René van Dorst" <opensource@vdorst.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poly1305: generic C can be faster on chips with slow unaligned access
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 19:08:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9oejs+USiGJX2P0TgvnR6XRzV1HYZPrq=c-CjGzq59=NQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161104173723.GB34176@google.com>

Hi Eric,

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> wrote:
> I agree, and the current code is wrong; but do note that this proposal is
> correct for poly1305_setrkey() but not for poly1305_setskey() and
> poly1305_blocks().  In the latter two cases, 4-byte alignment of the source
> buffer is *not* guaranteed.  Although crypto_poly1305_update() will be called
> with a 4-byte aligned buffer due to the alignmask set on poly1305_alg, the
> algorithm operates on 16-byte blocks and therefore has to buffer partial blocks.
> If some number of bytes that is not 0 mod 4 is buffered, then the buffer will
> fall out of alignment on the next update call.  Hence, get_unaligned_le32() is
> actually needed on all the loads, since the buffer will, in general, be of
> unknown alignment.

Hmm... The general data flow that strikes me as most pertinent is
something like:

struct sk_buff *skb = get_it_from_somewhere();
skb = skb_share_check(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
num_frags = skb_cow_data(skb, ..., ...);
struct scatterlist sg[num_frags];
sg_init_table(sg, num_frags);
skb_to_sgvec(skb, sg, ..., ...);
blkcipher_walk_init(&walk, sg, sg, len);
blkcipher_walk_virt_block(&desc, &walk, BLOCK_SIZE);
while (walk.nbytes >= BLOCK_SIZE) {
    size_t chunk_len = rounddown(walk.nbytes, BLOCK_SIZE);
    poly1305_update(&poly1305_state, walk.src.virt.addr, chunk_len);
    blkcipher_walk_done(&desc, &walk, walk.nbytes % BLOCK_SIZE);
}
if (walk.nbytes) {
    poly1305_update(&poly1305_state, walk.src.virt.addr, walk.nbytes);
    blkcipher_walk_done(&desc, &walk, 0);
}

Is your suggestion that that in the final if block, walk.src.virt.addr
might be unaligned? Like in the case of the last fragment being 67
bytes long?

If so, what a hassle. I hope the performance overhead isn't too
awful... I'll resubmit taking into account your suggestions.

By the way -- offlist benchmarks sent to me concluded that using the
unaligned load helpers like David suggested is just as fast as that
handrolled bit magic in the v1.

Regards,
Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-07 18:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-02 17:58 [PATCH] poly1305: generic C can be faster on chips with slow unaligned access Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-02 20:09 ` Herbert Xu
2016-11-02 20:47   ` Sandy Harris
2016-11-02 21:06   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-02 21:08     ` Herbert Xu
2016-11-02 21:25       ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-02 21:26         ` Herbert Xu
2016-11-02 22:00           ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-03  0:49             ` Herbert Xu
2016-11-03  7:24               ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-03 17:08                 ` David Miller
2016-11-03 22:20                   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-04 17:37                     ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-07 18:08                       ` Jason A. Donenfeld [this message]
2016-11-07 18:23                         ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-07 18:26                         ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-07 19:02                           ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-07 19:25                             ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-07 19:41                               ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-07 19:12 ` [PATCH v2] " Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-07 19:43   ` [PATCH v3] " Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-12 23:27     ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-07 19:47   ` [PATCH v4] " Jason A. Donenfeld
2016-11-07 20:40     ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-08  7:52     ` Martin Willi
2016-11-08 17:26       ` Eric Biggers
2016-11-13 11:29     ` Herbert Xu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHmME9oejs+USiGJX2P0TgvnR6XRzV1HYZPrq=c-CjGzq59=NQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jason@zx2c4.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=ebiggers@google.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin@strongswan.org \
    --cc=opensource@vdorst.com \
    --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).