NUCLEO_F756ZG / mbedTLS_SHA1 hw acceleration #4158

adustm · 2017-04-11T14:56:06Z

Description

mbedtls_SHA1 hw acceleration for NUCLEO_F756ZG

Status

READY

Related PRs

Same as #3957 on another branch

This PR needs #3954 + #3947 to be merged first

Steps to test or reproduce

same as in #3947

adustm · 2017-04-11T14:56:27Z

@sg-

RonEld

functionally, I believe it will work, however I would consider replacing the dynamically allocated buffer (ctx->sbuf) to a buffer in the context of size SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE (64) .Whenever it gets to 64, call HAL_HASH_SHA1_Accumulate with this buffer. amd another call to HAL_HASH_SHA1_Accumulate with the rest of the input. This will save memcpy to intermediate buffer, it will save memory fragmentation, so probably improve performance as well. (sometimes two calls to HAL_HASH_SHA1_Accumulate but I think it is faster then memcpy to buffer and memory fragmentation)

RonEld · 2017-04-12T08:22:09Z

features/mbedtls/targets/TARGET_STM/TARGET_STM32F4/TARGET_NUCLEO_F439ZI/mbedtls_device.h


-
+#define MBEDTLS_SHA1_C


Please remove

@adustm I think it wasn't removed

Correct, I missed this one because this branch is focusing on F7 family.

RonEld · 2017-04-12T08:28:11Z

features/mbedtls/targets/TARGET_STM/sha1_alt.c

+    }
+    if (ctx->sbuf !=NULL) { // allocation occured
+        memcpy(ctx->sbuf, ptr, size);
+        ctx->flag = 1;


please rename flag to something more clear, such as sbuf_flag

not applicable with the new storing mechanism

0xc0170 · 2017-05-16T08:24:37Z

retest uvisor

adustm · 2017-05-22T11:54:15Z

This branch is now aligned with the NUCLEO_F439ZI.

gilles-peskine-arm · 2017-05-23T15:36:27Z

Almost identical to PR #4157 so I won't comment on this one.

andresag01 · 2017-05-24T10:00:52Z

This is equivalent to #4162 and I have already reviewed that PR.

adustm · 2017-06-12T14:00:35Z

Hello,
@0xc0170 do you know what is failing in the Cam-CI uvisor Build & Test script ?
Kind regards
Armelle

adustm · 2017-06-16T09:36:00Z

Hello
Approvals are ok, rebase is done.
Kind regards

adustm · 2017-06-19T08:43:59Z

Hello, the scripts are still running after 3 days, I guess it should be executed again ?

Thanks in advance
Armelle

0xc0170 · 2017-06-19T08:53:21Z

@adustm Yes, I noticed today as well, notified already CI owners to restart the jobs in another PR

cc @tommikas @miklis

tommikas · 2017-06-19T09:02:45Z

@0xc0170 Only travis seems to be hanging in this one.

0xc0170 · 2017-06-19T09:09:03Z

I restarted Travis, the job is https://travis-ci.org/ARMmbed/mbed-os/builds/243562660

yanesca

Looks good to me.

adustm · 2017-06-20T13:15:39Z

Hello @RonEld
Your review approval is missing here. Kind regards
Armelle

adustm · 2017-06-22T11:47:02Z

bump ?

adbridge · 2017-06-23T10:26:39Z

@adustm sorry for the delays, our ci has been tied up with the 5.5.0 and 5.5.1 releases.

adbridge · 2017-06-23T10:26:47Z

/morph test

mbed-bot · 2017-06-23T13:17:27Z

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test

Output

mbed Build Number: 622

Example Build failed!

adustm · 2017-07-03T15:14:42Z

+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------+--------+--------------------+-------------+
| target                | platform_name | test suite             | result | elapsed_time (sec) | copy_method |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------+--------+--------------------+-------------+
| NUCLEO_F756ZG-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F756ZG | tests-mbedtls-multi    | OK     | 18.17              | shell       |
| NUCLEO_F756ZG-GCC_ARM | NUCLEO_F756ZG | tests-mbedtls-selftest | OK     | 29.2               | shell       |
| NUCLEO_F756ZG-IAR     | NUCLEO_F756ZG | tests-mbedtls-multi    | OK     | 19.56              | shell       |
| NUCLEO_F756ZG-IAR     | NUCLEO_F756ZG | tests-mbedtls-selftest | OK     | 30.5               | shell       |
| NUCLEO_F756ZG-ARM     | NUCLEO_F756ZG | tests-mbedtls-multi    | OK     | 18.58              | shell       |
| NUCLEO_F756ZG-ARM     | NUCLEO_F756ZG | tests-mbedtls-selftest | OK     | 29.85              | shell       |
+-----------------------+---------------+------------------------+--------+--------------------+-------------+

adustm · 2017-07-06T07:53:00Z

hello, I guess the next step is another morph test ?
Kind regards

theotherjimmy · 2017-07-06T16:23:17Z

@adustm Yep

/morph test

mbed-bot · 2017-07-06T18:36:57Z

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test

Output

mbed Build Number: 742

All builds and test passed!

adustm · 2017-07-07T07:16:07Z

Hello,
Happy to see the morph test pass at last !
Does anyone know how the morph test has been fixed ?
Kind regards

0xc0170 · 2017-07-10T14:59:51Z

Does anyone know how the morph test has been fixed ?

We fixed few targets - real issues with timings mostly, and host tests improvements that exercise those time tests

0xc0170 · 2017-07-13T14:51:23Z

@adustm Is there any dependency for this PR? Or ready to go?

adustm · 2017-07-25T09:24:58Z

Hello @0xc0170

I just rebased this PR on the master. It is ready to go.

Kind regards
Armelle

0xc0170 · 2017-07-25T09:32:18Z

Thank you @adustm , we will retrigger the tests

0xc0170 · 2017-07-25T14:54:56Z

/morph test-nightly

mbed-bot · 2017-07-25T22:21:53Z

Result: FAILURE

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 886

Example Build failed!

0xc0170 · 2017-07-26T09:41:42Z

/morph test-nightly

mbed-bot · 2017-07-28T02:45:29Z

Result: SUCCESS

Your command has finished executing! Here's what you wrote!

/morph test-nightly

Output

mbed Build Number: 897

All builds and test passed!

RonEld reviewed Apr 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added the needs: review label Apr 12, 2017

adustm force-pushed the STM_sha1_f756zg branch from 97fc115 to 716dc76 Compare May 22, 2017 11:44

sg- requested a review from yanesca June 15, 2017 14:59

adustm force-pushed the STM_sha1_f756zg branch from 2cc502a to 38299b5 Compare June 16, 2017 09:33

adustm changed the base branch from mbed-os-workshop-17q2 to master June 16, 2017 09:35

0xc0170 added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels Jun 16, 2017

yanesca approved these changes Jun 19, 2017

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 closed this Jun 19, 2017

0xc0170 removed the needs: CI label Jun 19, 2017

0xc0170 reopened this Jun 19, 2017

theotherjimmy added the needs: CI label Jun 19, 2017

RonEld approved these changes Jun 20, 2017

View reviewed changes

0xc0170 added needs: CI and removed needs: work labels Jul 4, 2017

0xc0170 added ready for merge and removed needs: CI labels Jul 10, 2017

theotherjimmy added the needs: preceding PR label Jul 10, 2017

adustm added 2 commits July 25, 2017 11:21

NUCLEO_F756ZG/mbedTLS : add hw acceleration for SHA1

a08eec0

Remove MBEDTLS_SHA1_C

45dcf59

adustm force-pushed the STM_sha1_f756zg branch from 55550e2 to 45dcf59 Compare July 25, 2017 09:24

theotherjimmy added needs: CI and removed ready for merge labels Jul 27, 2017

0xc0170 added ready for merge and removed needs: CI needs: preceding PR labels Jul 28, 2017

theotherjimmy merged commit b72a1f6 into ARMmbed:master Jul 31, 2017

theotherjimmy added release-version: 5.5.5 and removed ready for merge labels Jul 31, 2017

adustm deleted the STM_sha1_f756zg branch October 11, 2018 09:18



		#define MBEDTLS_SHA1_C

NUCLEO_F756ZG / mbedTLS_SHA1 hw acceleration #4158

NUCLEO_F756ZG / mbedTLS_SHA1 hw acceleration #4158

Uh oh!

Conversation

adustm commented Apr 11, 2017 • edited by theotherjimmy Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Status

Related PRs

This PR needs #3954 + #3947 to be merged first

Steps to test or reproduce

Uh oh!

adustm commented Apr 11, 2017

Uh oh!

RonEld left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented May 16, 2017

Uh oh!

adustm commented May 22, 2017

Uh oh!

gilles-peskine-arm commented May 23, 2017

Uh oh!

andresag01 commented May 24, 2017

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jun 12, 2017

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jun 16, 2017

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jun 19, 2017

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Jun 19, 2017

Uh oh!

tommikas commented Jun 19, 2017

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Jun 19, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

yanesca left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jun 20, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jun 22, 2017

Uh oh!

adbridge commented Jun 23, 2017

Uh oh!

adbridge commented Jun 23, 2017

Uh oh!

mbed-bot commented Jun 23, 2017

Output

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jul 3, 2017

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jul 6, 2017

Uh oh!

theotherjimmy commented Jul 6, 2017

Uh oh!

mbed-bot commented Jul 6, 2017

Output

Uh oh!

adustm commented Jul 7, 2017

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Jul 10, 2017

Uh oh!

0xc0170 commented Jul 13, 2017

Uh oh!

adustm commented Apr 11, 2017 •

edited by theotherjimmy

Loading

0xc0170 commented Jun 19, 2017 •

edited

Loading

adustm commented Jun 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading