linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] akcipher: Introduce verify2 for public key algorithms

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: <21904.1547655757@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:22:37 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Chikunov <vt@...linux.org>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        davem@...emloft.net, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] akcipher: Introduce verify2 for public key algorithms

Vitaly Chikunov <vt@...linux.org> wrote:

> This will be hard to do since there is at least tree device that use
> this interface (and who know how much out of tree):
> 
>   drivers$ git grep cra_name.*rsa
>   crypto/caam/caampkc.c:          .cra_name = "rsa",
>   crypto/ccp/ccp-crypto-rsa.c:            .cra_name = "rsa",
>   crypto/qat/qat_common/qat_asym_algs.c:          .cra_name = "rsa",
> 
> Interface seems to be designed that verify() call is interchangeable
> with encrypt().
> 
> Two verify does not seem that bad since there is common code for the old
> interface that removes code duplication and simplifies driver
> implementation (RSA drivers only need to implement encrypt).

You could move the comparison into core crypto code if it's makes more sense
than moving the comparison to the crypto algorithm ->verify() call.  It makes
more sense than the upper layers having to cover the differences between the
algo modules.

David