lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library
    On 13 September 2018 at 16:18, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
    > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:45 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
    >> I'm not convinced that there's any real need for *all* crypto
    >> algorithms to move into lib/zinc or to move at all. As I see it,
    >> there are two classes of crypto algorithms in the kernel:
    >>
    >> a) Crypto that is used by code that chooses its algorithm statically
    >> and wants synchronous operations. These include everything in
    >> drivers/char/random.c, but also a bunch of various networking things
    >> that are hardcoded and basically everything that uses stack buffers.
    >> (This means it includes all the code that I broke when I did
    >> VMAP_STACK. Sign.)
    >
    > Right, exactly. This is what will wind up using Zinc. I'm working on
    > an example usage of this for v4 of the patch submission, which you can
    > ogle in a preview here if you're curious:
    >
    > https://git.zx2c4.com/linux-dev/commit/?h=big_key_rewrite
    >
    > 28 insertions, 206 deletions :-D
    >

    I must say, that actually looks pretty good.

    >> b) Crypto that is used dynamically. This includes dm-crypt
    >> (aes-xts-plain64, aes-cbc-essiv, etc), all the ALG_IF interfaces, a
    >> lot of IPSEC stuff, possibly KCM, and probably many more. These will
    >> get comparatively little benefit from being converted to a zinc-like
    >> interface. For some of these cases, it wouldn't make any sense at all
    >> to convert them. Certainly the ones that do async hardware crypto
    >> using DMA engines will never look at all like zinc, even under the
    >> hood.
    >
    > Right, this is what the crypto API will continue to be used for.
    >
    >
    >> I think that, as a short-term goal, it makes a lot of sense to have
    >> implementations of the crypto that *new* kernel code (like Wireguard)
    >> wants to use in style (a) that live in /lib, and it obviously makes
    >> sense to consolidate their implementations with the crypto/
    >> implementations in a timely manner. As a medium-term goal, adding
    >> more algorithms as needed for things that could use the simpler APIs
    >> (Bluetooth, perhaps) would make sense.
    >
    > Agreed 100%. With regards to "consolidate their implementations" --
    > I've actually already done this after your urging yesterday, and so
    > that will be a part of v4.
    >
    >> But I see no reason at all that /lib should ever contain a grab-bag of
    >> crypto implementations just for the heck of it. They should have real
    >> in-kernel users IMO. And this means that there will probably always
    >> be some crypto implementations in crypto/ for things like aes-xts.
    >
    > Right, precisely.
    >
    > Jason

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-09-13 17:08    [W:3.564 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site