[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200221183437.GC925@sol.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:34:37 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@....qualcomm.com>,
Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] block: blk-crypto-fallback for Inline Encryption
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:35:39AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> High-level question: Does the whole keyslot manager concept even make
> sense for the fallback? With the work-queue we have item that exectutes
> at a time per cpu. So just allocatea per-cpu crypto_skcipher for
> each encryption mode and there should never be a slot limitation. Or
> do I miss something?
It does make sense because if blk-crypto-fallback didn't use a keyslot manager,
it would have to call crypto_skcipher_setkey() on the I/O path for every bio to
ensure that the CPU's crypto_skcipher has the correct key. That's undesirable,
because setting a new key can be expensive with some encryption algorithms, and
also it can require a memory allocation which can fail. For example, with the
Adiantum algorithm, setting a key requires encrypting ~1100 bytes of data in
order to generate subkeys. It's better to set a key once and use it many times.
Making blk-crypto-fallback use the keyslot manager also allows the keyslot
manager to be tested by routine filesystem regression testing, e.g.
'gce-xfstests -c ext4/encrypt -g auto -m inlinecrypt'.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists