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;
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:56:44 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Stephan =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=FCller?= <smueller@chronox.de>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Moreira <joao.moreira@lsc.ic.unicamp.br>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] crypto: x86/camellia: Use new glue function macros
Message-ID: <201911121452.AE2672AECB@keescook>
References: <20191111214552.36717-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20191111214552.36717-4-keescook@chromium.org>
 <3059417.7DhL3USBNQ@positron.chronox.de>
 <20191112031417.GB1433@sol.localdomain>
 <20191112031635.jm32vne33qxh7ojh@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191112031635.jm32vne33qxh7ojh@gondor.apana.org.au>
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:16:35AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 07:14:17PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >
> > Also, I don't see the point of the macros, other than to obfuscate things.  To
> > keep things straightforward, I think we should keep the explicit function
> > prototypes for each algorithm.
> 
> I agree.  Kees, please get rid of the macros.

Okay, if we do that, then we'll likely be dropping a lot of union logic
(since ecb and cbc end up with identical params and ctr and xts do too):

typedef void (*common_glue_func_t)(void *ctx, u8 *dst, const u8 *src);
typedef void (*common_glue_cbc_func_t)(void *ctx, u128 *dst, const u128 *src);
typedef void (*common_glue_ctr_func_t)(void *ctx, u128 *dst, const u128 *src,
                                       le128 *iv);
typedef void (*common_glue_xts_func_t)(void *ctx, u128 *dst, const u128 *src,
                                       le128 *iv);
...
struct common_glue_func_entry {
        unsigned int num_blocks; /* number of blocks that @fn will process */
        union { 
                common_glue_func_t ecb;
                common_glue_cbc_func_t cbc;
                common_glue_ctr_func_t ctr;
                common_glue_xts_func_t xts;
        } fn_u;
};

These would end up being just:

typedef void (*common_glue_func_t)(void *ctx, u8 *dst, const u8 *src);
typedef void (*common_glue_iv_func_t)(void *ctx, u8 *dst, const u8 *src,
                                       le128 *iv);
...
struct common_glue_func_entry {
        unsigned int num_blocks; /* number of blocks that @fn will process */
        union { 
                common_glue_func_t func;
                common_glue_iv_func_t iv_func;
        } fn_u;

Is that reasonable?

-- 
Kees Cook