linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] x86: Support Key Locker

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]

Date:   Thu, 6 Jan 2022 06:13:00 +0000
From:   "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
CC:     "dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "Gairuboyina, Charishma1" <charishma1.gairuboyina@...el.com>,
        "Dwarakanath, Kumar N" <kumar.n.dwarakanath@...el.com>,
        "Krishnakumar, Lalithambika" <lalithambika.krishnakumar@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] x86: Support Key Locker

On Jan 5, 2022, at 21:07, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 09:55:17PM +0000, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:
>> 
>> As long as it is factual that the mode was once popular, it can help somebody
>> who wants to use Key Locker for an old disk image I think.
> 
> AES-CBC is/was usually used with ESSIV, in which case the key cannot be fully
> protected by Key Locker.
> 
> I'm not sure you should bother to support legacy use cases, especially since it
> might mislead users into choosing a worse algorithm.

Alright, this is not that critical as it will be possible to add this mode
later when needed.

Thanks,
Chang