From: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Crypto test results unused? Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:12:50 +0100 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: lkml To: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:56026 "EHLO khc.piap.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751192AbZL1SMx (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:12:53 -0500 Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, is the core crypto code supposed to "kill" algorithms which fail the test? On little-endian IXP4xx 3 hardware-assisted algorithms fail (due to apparently unrelated bug which I will take care of). It seems the kernel is still using these failing algorithms (my debugging code adds extra fields to the /proc output): alg: skcipher: Test 1 failed on encryption for ecb(des)-ixp4xx 00000000: 01 23 45 67 89 ab cd e7 alg: skcipher: Test 1 failed on encryption for ecb(des3_ede)-ixp4xx 00000000: 73 6f 6d 65 64 61 74 61 alg: skcipher: Test 1 failed on encryption for ecb(aes)-ixp4xx 00000000: 00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 aa bb cc dd ee ff # grep 'ecb(des)-ixp4xx\|ecb(des3_ede)-ixp4xx\|ecb(aes)-ixp4xx' /proc/cryp to -A 6 driver : ecb(aes)-ixp4xx module : ixp4xx_crypto priority : 300 refcnt : 1 flags : 0x85 ptr : 0xbf020074 selftest : unknown ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- driver : ecb(des3_ede)-ixp4xx module : ixp4xx_crypto priority : 300 refcnt : 1 flags : 0x85 ptr : 0xbf01fe94 selftest : unknown -- driver : ecb(des)-ixp4xx module : ixp4xx_crypto priority : 300 refcnt : 1 flags : 0x85 ptr : 0xbf01fcb4 selftest : unknown I traced the problem to crypto/algapi.c: int crypto_register_alg(struct crypto_alg *alg) { struct crypto_larval *larval; int err; err = crypto_check_alg(alg); if (err) return err; down_write(&crypto_alg_sem); larval = __crypto_register_alg(alg); up_write(&crypto_alg_sem); if (IS_ERR(larval)) return PTR_ERR(larval); crypto_wait_for_test(larval); At this point alg->cra_flags includes CRYPTO_ALG_DEAD (due to failed test), but larval->alg.cra_flags has only the original flags (0x85). I'm not sure what's the best fix. Currently 2.6.31.9, seems to be present in 2.6.32, too. -- Krzysztof Halasa