Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180911214737.GA81235@gmail.com> <CAHmME9rFUruF-VN1pmU-k5nFsb9ppAPhPpW-5Ho9dKL2HCg4kA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180911233015.GD11474@lunn.ch> <20180911.165739.2032677219588723041.davem@davemloft.net>
 <CALCETrXrJPcs3h9CtF50N4k2AGx3qzspJd_UW3t+KGYOj7+p=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu8QgRo-Oex2Sk5unET3FMq+1Cp2btAWXCB8xsALxjatHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <35BC21D7-01F4-4F91-A7E9-8D15DE5B95D6@amacapital.net> <CAHmME9o2sB-rQo0DRh56AFe7ZLJJh+CU6Z1m5XZ4tA8vATCy1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9o2sB-rQo0DRh56AFe7ZLJJh+CU6Z1m5XZ4tA8vATCy1g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:07:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrWHWZibRev=hZeE1_YFjktnpV9VBN_QmvHJfakb-saRuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, andrew@lunn.ch,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@dei.uc.pt>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@gmail.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:32 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:52 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > I think the module organization needs to change. It needs to be possible to have chacha20 built in but AES or whatever as a module.
>
> Okay, I'll do that for v5.
>
> > I might have agreed before Spectre :(. Unfortunately, unless we do some magic, I think the code would look something like:
> >
> > if (static_branch_likely(have_simd)) arch_chacha20();
> >
> > ...where arch_chacha20 is a *pointer*. And that will generate a retpoline and run very, very slowly.  (I just rewrote some of the x86 entry code to eliminate one retpoline. I got a 5% speedup on some tests according to the kbuild bot.)
>
> Actually, the way it works now benefits from the compilers inliner and
> the branch predictor. I benchmarked this without any retpoline
> slowdowns, and the branch predictor becomes correct pretty much all
> the time. We can tinker with this after the initial merge, if you
> really want, but avoiding function pointers and instead using ordinary
> branches really winds up being quite fast.

Indeed.  What I'm saying is that you shouldn't refactor it this way
because it will be slow.  I agree it would be conceptually nice to be
able to blacklist a chacha20_x86_64 module to disable the asm, but I
think it would be very hard to get good performance.

--Andy