lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 21:11:02 +0200 From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore: migrate to crypto acomp interface (take 2) On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 20:23, Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/2022 15:14, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > [...] > > > > So at that point, I wondered what the point is of all this complexity. > > Do we really need 6 different algorithms to compress a couple of K of > > ASCII text on a code path that is ice cold by definition? Wouldn't it > > be better to drop the crypto API altogether here, and just use GZIP > > via the library interface? > > Skipping all the interesting and more complex parts, I'd just want to > consider zstd maybe? I just made the point that it doesn't matter. So on the one hand, I don't have any objections to ZSTD per se. But I do wonder if it is the best choice when it comes to code size etc. Perhaps one of the compression algorithms is guaranteed to be compiled in anyway? > Quite fast and efficient - it's what we're using by > default on Steam Deck. > > I'm not sure what is the gzip library interface - you mean skipping the > scomp/legacy comp interface, and make use directly of gzip? > zlib_deflate() and friends.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists