diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v2,4/4] selftests: bpf: crypto: adjust bench to use nullable IV

Message ID 20240510122823.1530682-5-vadfed@meta.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpf: make trusted args nullable | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18

Commit Message

Vadim Fedorenko May 10, 2024, 12:28 p.m. UTC 
The bench shows some improvements, around 4% faster on decrypt.

Before:

Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
Iter   0 (325.719us): hits    5.105M/s (  5.105M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.105M/s
Iter   1 (-17.295us): hits    5.224M/s (  5.224M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.224M/s
Iter   2 (  5.504us): hits    4.630M/s (  4.630M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    4.630M/s
Iter   3 (  9.239us): hits    5.148M/s (  5.148M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.148M/s
Iter   4 ( 37.885us): hits    5.198M/s (  5.198M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.198M/s
Iter   5 (-53.282us): hits    5.167M/s (  5.167M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.167M/s
Iter   6 (-17.809us): hits    5.186M/s (  5.186M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.186M/s
Summary: hits    5.092 ± 0.228M/s (  5.092M/prod), drops    0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.092 ± 0.228M/s

After:

Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
Iter   0 (268.912us): hits    5.312M/s (  5.312M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.312M/s
Iter   1 (124.869us): hits    5.354M/s (  5.354M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.354M/s
Iter   2 (-36.801us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
Iter   3 (254.628us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
Iter   4 (-77.691us): hits    5.275M/s (  5.275M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.275M/s
Iter   5 (-164.510us): hits    5.313M/s (  5.313M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.313M/s
Iter   6 (-81.376us): hits    5.346M/s (  5.346M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.346M/s
Summary: hits    5.326 ± 0.029M/s (  5.326M/prod), drops    0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.326 ± 0.029M/s

Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@meta.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c | 10 ++++------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Eduard Zingerman May 21, 2024, 7:49 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, 2024-05-10 at 05:28 -0700, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> The bench shows some improvements, around 4% faster on decrypt.
> 
> Before:
> 
> Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
> Iter   0 (325.719us): hits    5.105M/s (  5.105M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.105M/s
> Iter   1 (-17.295us): hits    5.224M/s (  5.224M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.224M/s
> Iter   2 (  5.504us): hits    4.630M/s (  4.630M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    4.630M/s
> Iter   3 (  9.239us): hits    5.148M/s (  5.148M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.148M/s
> Iter   4 ( 37.885us): hits    5.198M/s (  5.198M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.198M/s
> Iter   5 (-53.282us): hits    5.167M/s (  5.167M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.167M/s
> Iter   6 (-17.809us): hits    5.186M/s (  5.186M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.186M/s
> Summary: hits    5.092 ± 0.228M/s (  5.092M/prod), drops    0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.092 ± 0.228M/s
> 
> After:
> 
> Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
> Iter   0 (268.912us): hits    5.312M/s (  5.312M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.312M/s
> Iter   1 (124.869us): hits    5.354M/s (  5.354M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.354M/s
> Iter   2 (-36.801us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
> Iter   3 (254.628us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
> Iter   4 (-77.691us): hits    5.275M/s (  5.275M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.275M/s
> Iter   5 (-164.510us): hits    5.313M/s (  5.313M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.313M/s
> Iter   6 (-81.376us): hits    5.346M/s (  5.346M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.346M/s
> Summary: hits    5.326 ± 0.029M/s (  5.326M/prod), drops    0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.326 ± 0.029M/s
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@meta.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Martin KaFai Lau May 22, 2024, 6:01 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 5/10/24 5:28 AM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
> The bench shows some improvements, around 4% faster on decrypt.

The original intention is to make the crypto kfunc more ergonomic to use such 
that the bpf prog does not have to initialize a zero length dynptr for the 
optional dynptr argument.

This performance boost is a decent surprise considering the crypto operation 
should be pretty heavy. (thanks for having the crypto benchmark handy).

Do you have a chance to get a perf record to confirm where the cycles is saved?

Why it only helps decrypt?

Inlining it would be nice (as Eduard mentioned in another thread). I also wonder 
if Eduard's work on the no caller saved registers could help the dynptr kfunc? I 
think the dynptr kfunc optimization could be a followup.

> 
> Before:
> 
> Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
> Iter   0 (325.719us): hits    5.105M/s (  5.105M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.105M/s
> Iter   1 (-17.295us): hits    5.224M/s (  5.224M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.224M/s
> Iter   2 (  5.504us): hits    4.630M/s (  4.630M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    4.630M/s
> Iter   3 (  9.239us): hits    5.148M/s (  5.148M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.148M/s
> Iter   4 ( 37.885us): hits    5.198M/s (  5.198M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.198M/s
> Iter   5 (-53.282us): hits    5.167M/s (  5.167M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.167M/s
> Iter   6 (-17.809us): hits    5.186M/s (  5.186M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.186M/s
> Summary: hits    5.092 ± 0.228M/s (  5.092M/prod), drops    0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.092 ± 0.228M/s
> 
> After:
> 
> Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
> Iter   0 (268.912us): hits    5.312M/s (  5.312M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.312M/s
> Iter   1 (124.869us): hits    5.354M/s (  5.354M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.354M/s
> Iter   2 (-36.801us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
> Iter   3 (254.628us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
> Iter   4 (-77.691us): hits    5.275M/s (  5.275M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.275M/s
> Iter   5 (-164.510us): hits    5.313M/s (  5.313M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.313M/s
> Iter   6 (-81.376us): hits    5.346M/s (  5.346M/prod), drops 0.000M/s, total operations    5.346M/s
> Summary: hits    5.326 ± 0.029M/s (  5.326M/prod), drops    0.000 ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.326 ± 0.029M/s
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@meta.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c | 10 ++++------
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
> index e61fe0882293..4ac956b26240 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>   {
>   	struct __crypto_ctx_value *v;
>   	struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx;
> -	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv;
> +	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst;
>   
>   	v = crypto_ctx_value_lookup();
>   	if (!v) {
> @@ -73,9 +73,8 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>   
>   	bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc);
>   	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst);
> -	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv);
>   
> -	status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv);
> +	status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL);
>   	__sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1);
>   
>   	return 0;
> @@ -84,7 +83,7 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>   SEC("tc")
>   int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>   {
> -	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv;
> +	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst;
>   	struct __crypto_ctx_value *v;
>   	struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx;
>   
> @@ -98,9 +97,8 @@ int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>   
>   	bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc);
>   	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst);
> -	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv);
>   
> -	status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv);
> +	status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL);
>   	__sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1);
>   
>   	return 0;
Eduard Zingerman May 22, 2024, 6:07 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 11:01 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:


[...]

> Inlining it would be nice (as Eduard mentioned in another thread). I also wonder 
> if Eduard's work on the no caller saved registers could help the dynptr kfunc? I 
> think the dynptr kfunc optimization could be a followup.

For the context:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#no-caller-saved-registers

Basically the attribute says that compiler does not need
to save all r0-r5 registers for some function calls.
My changes for LLVM/verifier are not public yet,
I'll try to speedup.
Vadim Fedorenko May 22, 2024, 9:18 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 22/05/2024 19:01, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 5/10/24 5:28 AM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
>> The bench shows some improvements, around 4% faster on decrypt.
> 
> The original intention is to make the crypto kfunc more ergonomic to use 
> such that the bpf prog does not have to initialize a zero length dynptr 
> for the optional dynptr argument.
> 
> This performance boost is a decent surprise considering the crypto 
> operation should be pretty heavy. (thanks for having the crypto 
> benchmark handy).
> 
> Do you have a chance to get a perf record to confirm where the cycles is 
> saved?

Not really, but it's just initialization part changed, I was using the
same base commit to do the comparison.

> 
> Why it only helps decrypt?

It helps both, I just didn't show encrypt output, but it's the same 4%

> 
> Inlining it would be nice (as Eduard mentioned in another thread). I 
> also wonder if Eduard's work on the no caller saved registers could help 
> the dynptr kfunc? I think the dynptr kfunc optimization could be a 
> followup.
> 
>>
>> Before:
>>
>> Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
>> Iter   0 (325.719us): hits    5.105M/s (  5.105M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.105M/s
>> Iter   1 (-17.295us): hits    5.224M/s (  5.224M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.224M/s
>> Iter   2 (  5.504us): hits    4.630M/s (  4.630M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    4.630M/s
>> Iter   3 (  9.239us): hits    5.148M/s (  5.148M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.148M/s
>> Iter   4 ( 37.885us): hits    5.198M/s (  5.198M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.198M/s
>> Iter   5 (-53.282us): hits    5.167M/s (  5.167M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.167M/s
>> Iter   6 (-17.809us): hits    5.186M/s (  5.186M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.186M/s
>> Summary: hits    5.092 ± 0.228M/s (  5.092M/prod), drops    0.000 
>> ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.092 ± 0.228M/s
>>
>> After:
>>
>> Benchmark 'crypto-decrypt' started.
>> Iter   0 (268.912us): hits    5.312M/s (  5.312M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.312M/s
>> Iter   1 (124.869us): hits    5.354M/s (  5.354M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.354M/s
>> Iter   2 (-36.801us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
>> Iter   3 (254.628us): hits    5.334M/s (  5.334M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.334M/s
>> Iter   4 (-77.691us): hits    5.275M/s (  5.275M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.275M/s
>> Iter   5 (-164.510us): hits    5.313M/s (  5.313M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.313M/s
>> Iter   6 (-81.376us): hits    5.346M/s (  5.346M/prod), drops 
>> 0.000M/s, total operations    5.346M/s
>> Summary: hits    5.326 ± 0.029M/s (  5.326M/prod), drops    0.000 
>> ±0.000M/s, total operations    5.326 ± 0.029M/s
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@meta.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c | 10 ++++------
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c 
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
>> index e61fe0882293..4ac956b26240 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
>> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>>   {
>>       struct __crypto_ctx_value *v;
>>       struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx;
>> -    struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv;
>> +    struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst;
>>       v = crypto_ctx_value_lookup();
>>       if (!v) {
>> @@ -73,9 +73,8 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>>       bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc);
>>       bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst);
>> -    bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv);
>> -    status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv);
>> +    status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL);
>>       __sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1);
>>       return 0;
>> @@ -84,7 +83,7 @@ int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>>   SEC("tc")
>>   int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>>   {
>> -    struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv;
>> +    struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst;
>>       struct __crypto_ctx_value *v;
>>       struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx;
>> @@ -98,9 +97,8 @@ int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>>       bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc);
>>       bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst);
>> -    bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv);
>> -    status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv);
>> +    status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL);
>>       __sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1);
>>       return 0;
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
index e61fe0882293..4ac956b26240 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/crypto_bench.c
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@  int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 {
 	struct __crypto_ctx_value *v;
 	struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx;
-	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv;
+	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst;
 
 	v = crypto_ctx_value_lookup();
 	if (!v) {
@@ -73,9 +73,8 @@  int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 
 	bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc);
 	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst);
-	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv);
 
-	status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv);
+	status = bpf_crypto_encrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL);
 	__sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -84,7 +83,7 @@  int crypto_encrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 SEC("tc")
 int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 {
-	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst, iv;
+	struct bpf_dynptr psrc, pdst;
 	struct __crypto_ctx_value *v;
 	struct bpf_crypto_ctx *ctx;
 
@@ -98,9 +97,8 @@  int crypto_decrypt(struct __sk_buff *skb)
 
 	bpf_dynptr_from_skb(skb, 0, &psrc);
 	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, len, 0, &pdst);
-	bpf_dynptr_from_mem(dst, 0, 0, &iv);
 
-	status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, &iv);
+	status = bpf_crypto_decrypt(ctx, &psrc, &pdst, NULL);
 	__sync_add_and_fetch(&hits, 1);
 
 	return 0;