Re: [PATCH 6/7] crypto: qce: common: Add support for AEAD algorithms
From: Thara Gopinath
Date: Tue Apr 13 2021 - 18:44:33 EST
On 4/13/21 6:20 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Tue 13 Apr 16:31 CDT 2021, Thara Gopinath wrote:
Hi Bjorn,
On 4/5/21 6:18 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Thu 25 Feb 12:27 CST 2021, Thara Gopinath wrote:
Add register programming sequence for enabling AEAD
algorithms on the Qualcomm crypto engine.
Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/crypto/qce/common.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 153 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qce/common.c b/drivers/crypto/qce/common.c
index 05a71c5ecf61..54d209cb0525 100644
--- a/drivers/crypto/qce/common.c
+++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/common.c
@@ -15,6 +15,16 @@
#include "core.h"
#include "regs-v5.h"
#include "sha.h"
+#include "aead.h"
+
+static const u32 std_iv_sha1[SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE / sizeof(u32)] = {
+ SHA1_H0, SHA1_H1, SHA1_H2, SHA1_H3, SHA1_H4, 0, 0, 0
+};
+
+static const u32 std_iv_sha256[SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE / sizeof(u32)] = {
+ SHA256_H0, SHA256_H1, SHA256_H2, SHA256_H3,
+ SHA256_H4, SHA256_H5, SHA256_H6, SHA256_H7
+};
static inline u32 qce_read(struct qce_device *qce, u32 offset)
{
@@ -96,7 +106,7 @@ static inline void qce_crypto_go(struct qce_device *qce, bool result_dump)
qce_write(qce, REG_GOPROC, BIT(GO_SHIFT));
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_SHA
+#if defined(CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_SHA) || defined(CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_AEAD)
static u32 qce_auth_cfg(unsigned long flags, u32 key_size, u32 auth_size)
{
u32 cfg = 0;
@@ -139,7 +149,9 @@ static u32 qce_auth_cfg(unsigned long flags, u32 key_size, u32 auth_size)
return cfg;
}
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_SHA
static int qce_setup_regs_ahash(struct crypto_async_request *async_req)
{
struct ahash_request *req = ahash_request_cast(async_req);
@@ -225,7 +237,7 @@ static int qce_setup_regs_ahash(struct crypto_async_request *async_req)
}
#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_SKCIPHER
+#if defined(CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_SKCIPHER) || defined(CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_AEAD)
static u32 qce_encr_cfg(unsigned long flags, u32 aes_key_size)
{
u32 cfg = 0;
@@ -271,7 +283,9 @@ static u32 qce_encr_cfg(unsigned long flags, u32 aes_key_size)
return cfg;
}
+#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_SKCIPHER
static void qce_xts_swapiv(__be32 *dst, const u8 *src, unsigned int ivsize)
{
u8 swap[QCE_AES_IV_LENGTH];
@@ -386,6 +400,139 @@ static int qce_setup_regs_skcipher(struct crypto_async_request *async_req)
}
#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_QCE_AEAD
+static int qce_setup_regs_aead(struct crypto_async_request *async_req)
+{
+ struct aead_request *req = aead_request_cast(async_req);
+ struct qce_aead_reqctx *rctx = aead_request_ctx(req);
+ struct qce_aead_ctx *ctx = crypto_tfm_ctx(async_req->tfm);
+ struct qce_alg_template *tmpl = to_aead_tmpl(crypto_aead_reqtfm(req));
+ struct qce_device *qce = tmpl->qce;
+ __be32 enckey[QCE_MAX_CIPHER_KEY_SIZE / sizeof(__be32)] = {0};
+ __be32 enciv[QCE_MAX_IV_SIZE / sizeof(__be32)] = {0};
+ __be32 authkey[QCE_SHA_HMAC_KEY_SIZE / sizeof(__be32)] = {0};
+ __be32 authiv[SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE / sizeof(__be32)] = {0};
+ __be32 authnonce[QCE_MAX_NONCE / sizeof(__be32)] = {0};
+ unsigned int enc_keylen = ctx->enc_keylen;
+ unsigned int auth_keylen = ctx->auth_keylen;
+ unsigned int enc_ivsize = rctx->ivsize;
+ unsigned int auth_ivsize;
+ unsigned int enckey_words, enciv_words;
+ unsigned int authkey_words, authiv_words, authnonce_words;
+ unsigned long flags = rctx->flags;
+ u32 encr_cfg = 0, auth_cfg = 0, config, totallen;
I don't see any reason to initialize encr_cfg or auth_cfg.
right.. I will remove it
+ u32 *iv_last_word;
+
+ qce_setup_config(qce);
+
+ /* Write encryption key */
+ qce_cpu_to_be32p_array(enckey, ctx->enc_key, enc_keylen);
+ enckey_words = enc_keylen / sizeof(u32);
+ qce_write_array(qce, REG_ENCR_KEY0, (u32 *)enckey, enckey_words);
Afaict all "array registers" in this function are affected by the
CRYPTO_SETUP little endian bit, but you set this bit before launching
the operation dependent on IS_CCM(). So is this really working for the
!IS_CCM() case?
I am not sure I understand you. Below ,
/* get little endianness */
config = qce_config_reg(qce, 1);
qce_write(qce, REG_CONFIG, config);
is outside of any checks..
You're right, I misread that snippet as I was jumping through the
function. So we're unconditionally running the hardware in little endian
mode.
+
+ /* Write encryption iv */
+ qce_cpu_to_be32p_array(enciv, rctx->iv, enc_ivsize);
+ enciv_words = enc_ivsize / sizeof(u32);
+ qce_write_array(qce, REG_CNTR0_IV0, (u32 *)enciv, enciv_words);
It would be nice if this snippet was extracted to a helper function.
+
+ if (IS_CCM(rctx->flags)) {
+ iv_last_word = (u32 *)&enciv[enciv_words - 1];
+// qce_write(qce, REG_CNTR3_IV3, enciv[enciv_words - 1] + 1);
I believe this is a remnant of the two surrounding lines.
It indeed is.. I will remove it.
+ qce_write(qce, REG_CNTR3_IV3, (*iv_last_word) + 1);
enciv is an array of big endian 32-bit integers, which you tell the
compiler to treat as cpu-native endian, and then you do math on it.
Afaict from the documentation the value of REG_CNTR3_IVn should be set
to rctx->iv + 1, but if the hardware expects these in big endian then I
think you added 16777216.
So, the crypto engine documentation talks of writing to these registers in
little endian mode. The byte stream that you get for iv from the user
is in big endian mode as in the MSB is byte 0. So we kind of invert this and
write to these registers. This is what happens with declaring the __be32
array and copying words to it from the byte stream. So now byte 0 is the LSB
and a +1 will just add a 1 to it.
But if the data come in big endian and after qce_cpu_to_be32p_array()
you're able to do math on them with expected result and you're finally
passing the data to writel() then I think that qce_cpu_to_be32p_array()
is actually be32_to_cpu() and after the conversion you should carry the
results in CPU-native u32 arrays - and thereby skip the typecasting.
you mean I can replace __be32 arrays with u32 arrays ?? yes I probably
can. I will try this out and if it works do the change.
I suspect from what I read in the documentation we could get away by
removing this and writing the big endian byte stream directly and never
setting the little endian in config register. Though I am not sure if this
has ever been tested out. If we change it, it will be across algorithms and
as a separate effort.
writel() will, at least on arm64, convert the CPU native value to little
endian before writing it out, so I think the current setting make sense.
hmm.. ok.
Perhaps I'm missing something here though?
PS. Based on how the documentation is written, shouldn't you write out
REG_CNTR_IV[012] as well?
It is done on top, right ?
qce_write_array(qce, REG_CNTR0_IV0, (u32 *)enciv, enciv_words);
You're right, depending on enciv_words you write the 4 registers, then
increment the last word and write that out again.
+ qce_write_array(qce, REG_ENCR_CCM_INT_CNTR0, (u32 *)enciv, enciv_words);
+ qce_write(qce, REG_CNTR_MASK, ~0);
+ qce_write(qce, REG_CNTR_MASK0, ~0);
+ qce_write(qce, REG_CNTR_MASK1, ~0);
+ qce_write(qce, REG_CNTR_MASK2, ~0);
+ }
+
+ /* Clear authentication IV and KEY registers of previous values */
+ qce_clear_array(qce, REG_AUTH_IV0, 16);
+ qce_clear_array(qce, REG_AUTH_KEY0, 16);
+
+ /* Clear byte count */
+ qce_clear_array(qce, REG_AUTH_BYTECNT0, 4);
+
+ /* Write authentication key */
+ qce_cpu_to_be32p_array(authkey, ctx->auth_key, auth_keylen);
+ authkey_words = DIV_ROUND_UP(auth_keylen, sizeof(u32));
+ qce_write_array(qce, REG_AUTH_KEY0, (u32 *)authkey, authkey_words);
+
+ if (IS_SHA_HMAC(rctx->flags)) {
+ /* Write default authentication iv */
+ if (IS_SHA1_HMAC(rctx->flags)) {
+ auth_ivsize = SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE;
+ memcpy(authiv, std_iv_sha1, auth_ivsize);
+ } else if (IS_SHA256_HMAC(rctx->flags)) {
+ auth_ivsize = SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE;
+ memcpy(authiv, std_iv_sha256, auth_ivsize);
+ }
+ authiv_words = auth_ivsize / sizeof(u32);
+ qce_write_array(qce, REG_AUTH_IV0, (u32 *)authiv, authiv_words);
AUTH_IV0 is affected by the little endian configuration, does this imply
that IS_SHA_HMAC() and IS_CCM() are exclusive bits of rctx->flags? If so
I think it would be nice if you grouped the conditionals in a way that
made that obvious when reading the function.
So yes IS_SHA_HMAC() and IS_CCM() are exclusive bits of rctx->flags.
AUTH_IVn is 0 for ccm and has initial value for HMAC algorithms. I don't
understand the confusion here.
I'm just saying that writing is as below would have made it obvious to
me that IS_SHA_HMAC() and IS_CCM() are exclusive:
So regardless of the mode, it is a good idea to clear the IV registers
which happens above in
qce_clear_array(qce, REG_AUTH_IV0, 16);
This is important becasue the size of IV varies between HMAC(SHA1) and
HMAC(SHA256) and we don't want any previous bits sticking around.
For CCM after the above step we don't do anything with AUTH_IV where as
for SHA_HMAC we have to go and program the registers. I can split it into
if (IS_SHA_HMAC(flags)) {
...
} else {
...
}
but both snippets will have the above line code clearing the IV register
and the if part will have more stuff actually programming these
registers.. Is that what you are looking for ?
--
Warm Regards
Thara