archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Latypov <>
To: Herbert Xu <>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 1/2] crypto: tcrypt: minimal conversion to run under KUnit
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:31:28 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 11:43 PM Herbert Xu <> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 02:31:37PM -0700, Daniel Latypov wrote:
> >> == Questions ==
> > * does this seem like it would make running the test easier?
> I don't mind.  tcrypt these days isn't used so much for correctness
> testing.  It's mostly being used for speed testing.  A secondary
> use is to instantiate templates.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
In that case, how useful would ` run` be? I.e. Do people
mostly want to see numbers on bare metal?

The default mode of ` run` is to use ARCH=um.
I assume (for at least most of the library-type crypto code) it should
have the same performance characteristics, but that might not be the
case. I can try and get some numbers on that.

There's an option to make ` run` use ARCH=86_64, but it'll be
in a QEMU VM, so again there's some performance overhead.

If either option seems useful, then perhaps a minimal patch like this
would be beneficial.
I can make it even smaller and less intrusive by restoring the "ret +=
..." code and having a single `KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, ret, 0, "at
least one test case failed")` at the very end.

It does not sound like patch #2 or any future attempts to try and make
use of KUnit features is necessarily worth it, if correctness testing
isn't really the goal of tcrypt.c anymore.

> > * does `tvmem` actually need page-aligned buffers?
> I think it may be needed for those split-SG test cases where
> we deliberately create a buffer that straddles a page boundary.
> > * I have no clue how FIPS intersects with all of this.
> It doesn't really matter because in FIPS mode when a correctness
> test fails the kernel panics.
> >   * would it be fine to leave the test code built-in for FIPS instead of
> >   returning -EAGAIN?
> The returning -EAGAIN is irrelevant in FIPS mode.  It's more of
> an aid in normal mode when you use tcrypt for speed testing.
> Thanks,
> --
> Email: Herbert Xu <>
> Home Page:
> PGP Key:

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-23 19:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-15 21:31 [RFC v1 0/2] crypto: tcrypt: small changes to run under KUnit Daniel Latypov
2021-07-15 21:31 ` [RFC v1 1/2] crypto: tcrypt: minimal conversion " Daniel Latypov
2021-07-23  6:43   ` Herbert Xu
2021-07-23 19:31     ` Daniel Latypov [this message]
2021-07-30  2:55       ` Herbert Xu
2021-07-30  5:33         ` David Gow
2021-07-15 21:31 ` [RFC v1 2/2] crypto: tcrypt: call KUNIT_FAIL() instead of pr_err() Daniel Latypov

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:

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

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).