linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V8 1/5] crypto: Multi-buffer encryption infrastructure support

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

Message-ID: <20180419032525.6csodbz6lrksyudd@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:25:25 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:     "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 1/5] crypto: Multi-buffer encryption infrastructure
 support

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 12:54:16AM +0000, Dey, Megha wrote:
>
> Yeah I think I misunderstood. I think what you mean is to remove mcryptd.c completely and avoid the extra layer of indirection to call the underlying algorithm, instead call it directly, correct?
> 
> So currently we have 3 algorithms registered for every multibuffer algorithm:
> name         : __sha1-mb
> driver       : mcryptd(__intel_sha1-mb)
> 
> name         : sha1
> driver       : sha1_mb
> 
> name         : __sha1-mb
> driver       : __intel_sha1-mb
> 
> If we remove mcryptd, then we will have just the 2?

It should be down to just one, i.e., the current inner algorithm.
It's doing all the scheduling work already so I don't really see
why it needs the wrappers around it.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt