lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Crypto test results unused?
    Date
    Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:

    >> On little-endian IXP4xx 3 hardware-assisted algorithms fail (due to
    >> apparently unrelated bug which I will take care of). It seems the kernel
    >> is still using these failing algorithms (my debugging code adds extra
    >> fields to the /proc output):
    >
    > How did you determine that it was still being used? When a kernel
    > user requests for an algorithm the system is supposed to skip
    > anything which failed the self-test.

    cat /proc/crypto shows "selftest: unknown" for those failed tests. I
    don't know if that means it's used, but I'd expect "failed" or something
    like that. Maybe it's simply a problem in /proc/crypto output.

    > CRYPTO_ALG_DEAD is used to mark algorithms deleted from the
    > system. However, we don't delete algorithms just because they
    > fail the self-test. They remain in the system so you can come
    > back and diagnose the problem. They just aren't used by anyone.

    Great.

    Currently the /proc/crypto contains:

    - for passed tests: "selftest: passed" (which is of course right)

    - for failed tests: "selftest: unknown" (which is a surprise for me):

    alg: skcipher: Test 1 failed on encryption for ecb(des)-ixp4xx
    00000000: 01 23 45 67 89 ab cd e7

    name : ecb(des)
    driver : ecb(des)-ixp4xx
    module : ixp4xx_crypto
    priority : 300
    refcnt : 1
    selftest : unknown
    type : ablkcipher
    async : yes
    blocksize : 8
    min keysize : 8
    max keysize : 8
    ivsize : 0
    geniv : <default>

    - for routines without a test: "selftest: passed" (which isn't true
    either)

    alg: No test for authenc(hmac(md5),cbc(des)) (authenc(hmac(md5),cbc(des))-ixp4xx)

    name : authenc(hmac(md5),cbc(des))
    driver : authenc(hmac(md5),cbc(des))-ixp4xx
    module : ixp4xx_crypto
    priority : 300
    refcnt : 1
    selftest : passed
    type : aead
    async : yes
    blocksize : 8
    ivsize : 8
    maxauthsize : 16
    geniv : <built-in>

    I think we need a way to differentiate between "really unknown" and
    "failed", do we need another flag for it?
    --
    Krzysztof Halasa


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-12 18:57    [W:0.024 / U:153.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site