Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200420075711.2385190-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20200422040415.GA2881@sol.localdomain>
 <CAHmME9q=hMRjBG=SBX8gCC3qx-t1wdEwMOYx952m9HkByjiofA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMj1kXE-UZxw0C3WRVh7RfuWE0BNDT4bt4qJa1SyOH3K-qBBcQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXE-UZxw0C3WRVh7RfuWE0BNDT4bt4qJa1SyOH3K-qBBcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 13:51:11 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qXy4X3GtCtt5_1+KTxTXd6+nfhvE_c8Xn6_iJdRWhQmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH crypto-stable] crypto: arch/lib - limit simd usage to
 PAGE_SIZE chunks
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:39 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 09:32, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > Seems this should just be a 'while' loop?
> > >
> > >         while (bytes) {
> > >                 unsigned int todo = min_t(unsigned int, PAGE_SIZE, bytes);
> > >
> > >                 kernel_neon_begin();
> > >                 chacha_doneon(state, dst, src, todo, nrounds);
> > >                 kernel_neon_end();
> > >
> > >                 bytes -= todo;
> > >                 src += todo;
> > >                 dst += todo;
> > >         }
> >
> > The for(;;) is how it's done elsewhere in the kernel (that this patch
> > doesn't touch), because then we can break out of the loop before
> > having to increment src and dst unnecessarily. Likely a pointless
> > optimization as probably the compiler can figure out how to avoid
> > that. But maybe it can't. If you have a strong preference, I can
> > reactor everything to use `while (bytes)`, but if you don't care,
> > let's keep this as-is. Opinion?
> >
>
> Since we're bikeshedding, I'd prefer 'do { } while (bytes);' here,
> given that bytes is guaranteed to be non-zero before we enter the
> loop. But in any case, I'd prefer avoiding for(;;) or while(1) where
> we can.

Okay, will do-while it up for v2.