Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200723084622.31134-1-jorge@foundries.io> <20200723084622.31134-2-jorge@foundries.io>
 <CAFA6WYPQ3GGYostoHU=6qg4c_LqoqOZVbZ8gbQbGkNfyGydQjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200724142305.GA24164@trex> <CAFA6WYOGu4DPzd93h-yFLJvLmRH=ZroN70+ZNY6xCOOM+TJOSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200805203817.GA12229@trex>
In-Reply-To: <20200805203817.GA12229@trex>
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:41:53 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFA6WYPKGTb6Qj7emETpB9-XXO8vcf6v2ONKD4pt+M9F-=HWbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] hwrng: optee: fix wait use case
To:     "Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries" <jorge@foundries.io>
Cc:     Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, ricardo@foundries.io,
        Michael Scott <mike@foundries.io>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        op-tee@lists.trustedfirmware.org,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 02:08, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries
<jorge@foundries.io> wrote:
>
> On 05/08/20, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > Apologies for my delayed response as I was busy with some other tasks
> > along with holidays.
>
> no pb! was just making sure this wasnt falling through some cracks.
>
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 19:53, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries
> > <jorge@foundries.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24/07/20, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 14:16, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge@foundries.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The current code waits for data to be available before attempting a
> > > > > second read. However the second read would not be executed as the
> > > > > while loop exits.
> > > > >
> > > > > This fix does not wait if all data has been read and reads a second
> > > > > time if only partial data was retrieved on the first read.
> > > > >
> > > > > This fix also does not attempt to read if not data is requested.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure how this is possible, can you elaborate?
> > >
> > > currently, if the user sets max 0, get_optee_rng_data will regardless
> > > issuese a call to the secure world requesting 0 bytes from the RNG
> > >
> >
> > This case is already handled by core API: rng_dev_read().
>
> ah ok good point, you are right
> but yeah, there is no consequence to the actual patch.
>

So, at least you could get rid of the corresponding text from commit message.

> >
> > > with this patch, this request is avoided.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge@foundries.io>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  v2: tidy up the while loop to avoid reading when no data is requested
> > > > >
> > > > >  drivers/char/hw_random/optee-rng.c | 4 ++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/optee-rng.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/optee-rng.c
> > > > > index 5bc4700c4dae..a99d82949981 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/optee-rng.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/optee-rng.c
> > > > > @@ -122,14 +122,14 @@ static int optee_rng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max, bool wait)
> > > > >         if (max > MAX_ENTROPY_REQ_SZ)
> > > > >                 max = MAX_ENTROPY_REQ_SZ;
> > > > >
> > > > > -       while (read == 0) {
> > > > > +       while (read < max) {
> > > > >                 rng_size = get_optee_rng_data(pvt_data, data, (max - read));
> > > > >
> > > > >                 data += rng_size;
> > > > >                 read += rng_size;
> > > > >
> > > > >                 if (wait && pvt_data->data_rate) {
> > > > > -                       if (timeout-- == 0)
> > > > > +                       if ((timeout-- == 0) || (read == max))
> > > >
> > > > If read == max, would there be any sleep?
> > >
> > > no but I see no reason why there should be a wait since we already have
> > > all the data that we need; the msleep is only required when we need to
> > > wait for the RNG to generate entropy for the number of bytes we are
> > > requesting. if we are requesting 0 bytes, the entropy is already
> > > available. at leat this is what makes sense to me.
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't it lead to a call as msleep(0); that means no wait as well?
>
> I dont understand: there is no reason to wait if read == max and this
> patch will not wait: if read == max it calls 'return read'
>
> am I misunderstanding your point?

What I mean is that we shouldn't require this extra check here as
there wasn't any wait if read == max with existing implementation too.

-Sumit

>
> >
> > -Sumit
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -Sumit
> > > >
> > > > >                                 return read;
> > > > >                         msleep((1000 * (max - read)) / pvt_data->data_rate);
> > > > >                 } else {
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.17.1
> > > > >