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 22:13:52 +0200 From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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, 17 Oct 2022 at 22:11, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > 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? > That doesn't exist, that is the point. But how does the algo matter when you are dealing with mere kilobytes of ASCII text?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists