Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177]:34651 "EHLO mail-io0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753379AbcJNLLN (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:11:13 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r30so117209479ioi.1 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:11:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1476439212.31114.37.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <20161010150358.GA514@swordfish> <20161010153050.GA836@swordfish> <1476263106.5271.23.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20161012141245.GA436@swordfish> <1476282127.5271.30.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476338524.4904.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20161013134252.GA583@swordfish> <1476366354.4904.31.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476429916.4382.12.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476433699.31114.6.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476434561.31114.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476435303.31114.14.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476436248.31114.21.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476437149.31114.27.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1476439212.31114.37.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:11:12 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20161014_131123_994075_5B307257) Subject: Re: [mac80211] BUG_ON with current -git (4.8.0-11417-g24532f7) To: Johannes Berg Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , Sergey Senozhatsky , Network Development , Sergey Senozhatsky , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Linux Wireless List , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jouni Malinen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 14 October 2016 at 11:00, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> So why is the performance hit acceptable for ESP but not for WPA? We >> could easily implement the same thing, i.e., >> kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC)/kfree the aead_req struct rather than allocate it >> on the stack > > Yeah, maybe we should. It's likely a much bigger allocation, but I > don't actually know if that affects speed. > > In most cases where you want high performance we never hit this anyway > since we'll have hardware crypto. I know for our (Intel's) devices we > normally never hit these code paths. > > But on the other hand, you also did your changes for a reason, and the > only reason I can see of that is performance. So you'd be the one with > most "skin in the game", I guess? > Well, what sucks here is that the accelerated driver I implemented for arm64 does not actually need this, as long as we take aad[] off the stack. And note that the API was changed since my patch, to add aad[] to the scatterlist: prior to this change, it used aead_request_set_assoc() to set the associated data separately.