linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] pstore: migrate to crypto acomp interface (take 2)

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

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 <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?