linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] crypto: engine - Permit to enqueue all async requests

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171222093418.GB3024@Red>
Date:   Fri, 22 Dec 2017 10:34:18 +0100
From:   Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     alexandre.torgue@...com, arei.gonglei@...wei.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, jasowang@...hat.com,
        mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, mst@...hat.com, fabien.dessenne@...com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] crypto: engine - Permit to enqueue all async
 requests

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 08:06:03PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 09:41:48AM +0100, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> >
> > It's you that was suggesting using crypto_async_request:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1474434.html
> > "The only wart with this scheme is that the drivers end up seeing
> > struct crypto_async_request and will need to convert that to the
> > respective request types but I couldn't really find a better way."
> > 
> > So I wait for any suggestion.
> 
> The core engine code obviously will use the base type but it should
> not be exposed to the driver authors.  IOW all exposed API should
> take the final types such as aead_request before casting it.
> 

For driver->engine calls(crypto_finalize_request/crypto_transfer_request_to_engine) it's easy.

But I do not see how to do it for crypto_engine_op appart re-introducing the big if/then/else that
you didnt want.
Or do you agree to set the request parameter for crypto_engine_op(prepare_request/unprepare_request/do_one_request) to void * ?

Regards