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 13:11:23 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> Cc: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>, 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, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:45:08PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 21:40, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > Okay, so strictly speaking, eliminating the per-CPU allocation is an > > improvement. Keeping scomp and doing in-place compression will let > > pstore use "any" compressions method. > > I'm not following the point you are making here. Sorry, I mean to say that if I leave scomp in pstore, nothing is "worse" (i.e. the per-cpu allocation is present in both scomp and acomp). i.e. no regression either way, but if we switch to a distinct library call, it's an improvement on the memory utilization front. > > Is there a crypto API that does _not_ preallocate the per-CPU stuff? > > Because, as you say, it's a huge amount of memory on the bigger > > systems... > > The library interface for each of the respective algorithms. Where is the crypto API for just using the library interfaces, so I don't have to be tied to a specific algo? -- Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists