Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191017122549.4634-1-t-kristo@ti.com> <CAKv+Gu_HNOTSvWRTzLMeECaM8qCi5w806ht_e68e5vgcU9aQvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8f97d690-a88a-55cb-eb67-206e01873d94@ti.com> <bf22f7dd-5446-d736-611b-6465df45b74d@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <bf22f7dd-5446-d736-611b-6465df45b74d@ti.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:05:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu_ABcosRm30nrtCY429Xki8_b9GAzQ=hQ=Kiuo2o6Y2ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] crypto: omap fixes towards 5.5
To:     Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:56, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2019 14:55, Tero Kristo wrote:
> > On 25/10/2019 14:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 14:26, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> This series fixes a number of bugs with omap crypto implementation.
> >>> These have become evident with the changes to the cryptomanager, where
> >>> it adds some new test cases and modifies some existing, namely the split
> >>> update tests. Also, while fixing the cryptomanager induced bugs, some
> >>> other surfaced with tcrypt/IPSec tests, so fixed them aswell.
> >>>
> >>> Patch #9 is against crypto core modifying the crypto_wait_req
> >>> common API to have a timeout for it also, currently it waits forever
> >>> and it is kind of difficult to see what test fails with crypto manager.
> >>> This is not really needed for anything, but it is kind of nice to have
> >>> (makes debugging easier.)
> >>>
> >>> This series has been tested on top of 5.4-rc2, with following setups,
> >>> on AM57xx-beagle-x15 board:
> >>>
> >>> - crypto manager self tests
> >>> - tcrypt performance test
> >>> - ipsec test with strongswan
> >>>
> >>> This series depends on the skcipher API switch patch from Ard Biesheuvel
> >>> [1].
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Tero,
> >>
> >> On my BeagleBone White, I am hitting the following issues after
> >> applying these patches:
> >>
> >> [    7.493903] alg: skcipher: ecb-aes-omap encryption unexpectedly
> >> succeeded on test vector "random: len=531 klen=32";
> >> expected_error=-22, cfg="random: inplace may_sleep use_finup
> >> src_divs=[44.72%@+4028, <flush>14.70%@alignmask+3, 19.45%@+4070,
> >> 21.13%@+2728]"
> >> [    7.651103] alg: skcipher: cbc-aes-omap encryption unexpectedly
> >> succeeded on test vector "random: len=1118 klen=32";
> >> expected_error=-22, cfg="random: may_sleep use_final
> >> src_divs=[<reimport>41.87%@+31, <flush>58.13%@+2510]"
> >>
> >> These are simply a result of the ECB and CBC implementations not
> >> returning -EINVAL when the input is not a multiple of the block size.
> >>
> >> [    7.845527] alg: skcipher: blocksize for ctr-aes-omap (16) doesn't
> >> match generic impl (1)
> >>
> >> This means cra_blocksize is not set to 1 as it should. If your driver
> >> uses the skcipher walk API, it should set the walksize to
> >> AES_BLOCK_SIZE to ensure that the input is handled correctly. If you
> >> don't, then you can disregard that part.
> >>
> >> [    8.306491] alg: aead: gcm-aes-omap setauthsize unexpectedly
> >> succeeded on test vector "random: alen=3 plen=31 authsize=6 klen=9";
> >> expected_error=-22
> >>
> >> Another missing sanity check. GCM only permits certain authsizes.
> >>
> >> [    9.074703] omap_crypto_copy_sgs: Couldn't allocate pages for
> >> unaligned cases.
> >>
> >> This is not a bug, but I'm not sure if the below is related or not.
> >>
> >> I'll preserve the binaries, in case you need me to objdump anything.
> >
> > What are these tests you are executing? For me, the testmgr self test
> > suite is passing just fine. Any extra tests you have enabled somehow?
> >

I enabled CONFIG_CRYPTO_MANAGER_EXTRA_TESTS, which enables a bunch of
fuzz tests of the offloaded algorithms against the generic
implementations.

> > I am also running full test on different board though (am57xx), I
> > haven't been explicitly running anything on am335x.
>
> Oh, and btw, did you try without my series? I think the selftests are
> failing rather miserably without them...
>

No, I just tried a branch with mine and your patches applied.