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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:29:03 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <>
Cc:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <>,
        Anton Vorontsov <>,
        Colin Cross <>,
        Tony Luck <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore: migrate to crypto acomp interface (take 2)

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 08:14:14PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> So once we use the same size for input and output, I was curious
> whether we could encrypt in place, and get rid of the big_oops_buf.
> And the answer is 'yes', precisely because we have this horrid per-CPU
> allocation which serves as a bounce buffer. And this is not specific
> to acomp, the old comp algorithms get wrapped in scomps which receive
> the same treatment.

Ah, in the sense that "in place" is actually happening in the per-cpu
allocation, and only if it succeeds does the input buffer get

> 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?

Well, my goal was to make the algo "pstore doesn't care". If someone
picks deflate, do they still get all the per-cpu allocations?

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists