Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:08:53 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Robert Elliott <elliott@hpe.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, ap420073@gmail.com, ardb@kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/19] crypto: x86/sha - limit FPU preemption
Message-ID: <Y0erdZ/tJWgm4KKi@sol.localdomain>
References: <20221006223151.22159-1-elliott@hpe.com>
 <20221012215931.3896-1-elliott@hpe.com>
 <20221012215931.3896-5-elliott@hpe.com>
 <Y0eosAIgkvMzYJz8@sol.localdomain>
 <Y0eqe5lbazXzpM/K@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y0eqe5lbazXzpM/K@gondor.apana.org.au>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:04:43PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:57:04PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >
> > 'len' can't be 0 at the beginning of this loop, so the 'if (chunk)' check isn't
> > needed.  And it wouldn't make sense even if 'len' could be 0, since a while loop
> > could just be used in that case.
> 
> I don't see anything preventing len from being zero if this gets
> called directly by a user of the Crypto API through crypto_shash_update.
> But yes a while loop would be a lot cleaner.
> 

When len == 0, the following path is taken instead:

        if (!crypto_simd_usable() ||
            (sctx->count % SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE) + len < SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE)
                return crypto_sha1_update(desc, data, len);

- Eric