From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com,
memxor@gmail.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org,
emil@etsalapatis.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kmehltretter@gmail.com,
martin.lau@kernel.org, mason@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4] bpf: crypto: Use AES-CBC and AES-ECB libraries
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:55:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260923045534.GD42709@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a5e07fdd93b0f6b38dfce4cf977e88eac653bed08ee713372bf31bc6cff349e7@mail.kernel.org>
On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 04:22:57AM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> This isn't a bug, but struct aes_enckey pads itself so the round keys
> can be 16-byte aligned for better performance (as documented in
> include/crypto/aes.h). Putting the 4-byte algo enum before the key union
> means key.aes lands at offset 4, so the round keys can never hit that
> alignment. Would putting key first (or aligning it) be worth considering
> here?
Sure, but it's very much bikeshedding. If someone cared about
performance enough to be micro-optimizing the data alignment here, they
would also have noticed than the optimized implementations of AES modes
aren't actually being used, which is way, *way* more important.
Coincidentally, I'm addressing that in a separate series
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20260921050910.296144-1-ebiggers@kernel.org/)...
I would not consider it worth worrying about the alignment here.
> This isn't a bug, but both helpers repeat the same src_len %
> AES_BLOCK_SIZE and dst_len < src_len checks. Could that validation stay
> in bpf_crypto_crypt() next to the existing length checks, leaving only
> the iv_len check per mode?
It's done the way it is because it makes it more straightforward to add
AES-GCM support, which is desired as per previous discussions.
Anyway, these random bpf-ci bot comments on every version are getting a
bit annoying. Especially when it explicitly says "This isn't a bug",
and then the instructions at the end of the email assume it is.
- Eric
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-23 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-23 3:27 Eric Biggers
2026-09-23 4:22 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-23 4:55 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260923045534.GD42709@sol \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kmehltretter@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®