On 18 October 2016 at 15:24, Johannes Berg <johan...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-18 at 15:18 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > Hmm. Is it really worth having a per-CPU variable for each possible
>> > key? You could have a large number of those (typically three when
>> > you're a client on an AP, and 1 + 1 for each client when you're the
>> > AP).
> 2 + 1 for each client, actually, since you have 2 GTKs present in the
> "steady state"; not a big difference though.
>> > Would it be so bad to have to set the TFM every time (if that's
>> > even possible), and just have a single per-CPU cache?
>> That would be preferred, yes. The only snag here is that
>> crypto_alloc_aead() is not guaranteed to return the same algo every
>> time, which means the request size is not guaranteed to be the same
>> either. This is a rare corner case, of course, but it needs to be
>> dealt with regardless
> Ah, good point. Well I guess you could allocate a bigger one it if it's
> too small, but then we'd have to recalculate the size all the time
> (which we already did anyway, but saving something else would be good).
> Then we'd be close to just having a per-CPU memory block cache though.

Well, ideally we'd allocate the ccm(aes) crypto_alg a single time and
'spawn' the transforms for each key. This is how the crypto API
implements templates internally, but I don't think this functionality
is publicly accessible. Herbert?

Reply via email to