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 22:13:52 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <>
To:     Kees Cook <>
Cc:     "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <>,
        Anton Vorontsov <>,
        Colin Cross <>,
        Tony Luck <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore: migrate to crypto acomp interface (take 2)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 22:11, Kees Cook <> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:45:08PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 21:40, Kees Cook <> 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