[PATCH v2 00/15] SHA-3 library

[Harald Freudenberger]

On 2025-10-29 21:33, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 09:32:16AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 10:30:40AM +0100, Harald Freudenberger wrote:
>> > > If the s390 folks could re-test the s390 optimized SHA-3 code (by
>> > > enabling CRYPTO_LIB_SHA3_KUNIT_TEST and CRYPTO_LIB_BENCHMARK), that
>> > > would be helpful.  QEMU doesn't support the instructions it uses.  Also,
>> > > it would be helpful to provide the benchmark output from just before
>> > > "lib/crypto: s390/sha3: Add optimized Keccak function", just after it,
>> > > and after "lib/crypto: s390/sha3: Add optimized one-shot SHA-3 digest
>> > > functions".  Then we can verify that each change is useful.
>> [...]
>> >
>> > Picked this series from your ebiggers repo branch sha3-lib-v2.
>> > Build on s390 runs without any complains, no warnings.
>> > As recommended I enabled the KUNIT option and also CRYPTO_SELFTESTS_FULL.
>> > With an "modprobe tcrypt" I enforced to run the selftests
>> > and in parallel I checked that the s390 specific CPACF instructions
>> > are really used (can be done with the pai command and check for
>> > the KIMD_SHA3_* counters). Also ran some AF-alg tests to verify
>> > all the the sha3 hashes and check for thread safety.
>> > All this ran without any findings. However there are NO performance
>> > related tests involved.
>> 
>> Thanks!  Just to confirm, did you actually run the sha3 KUnit test and
>> verify that all its test cases passed?  That's the most important one.
>> It also includes a benchmark, if CONFIG_CRYPTO_LIB_BENCHMARK=y is
>> enabled, and I was hoping to see your results from that after each
>> change.  The results get printed to the kernel log when the test runs.
>> 
> 
> Also, can you confirm that you ran the test on a CPU that has
> "facility 86", so that the one-shot digest functions get exercised?
> 
> (By the way, I recommend defining named constants somewhere in
> arch/s390/ for the different facilities.  I borrowed the
> "test_facility(86)" from the existing code, which does not say what 86
> means.  After doing some research, it looks like it means MSA12.)
> 

Of course, the machine I used has MSA level 12 (stfle bit 86).

> - Eric