linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] 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, 13 Jan 2022 22:34:26 +0000
From:   "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC:     Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...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>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] x86: Support Key Locker

On Jan 13, 2022, at 14:16, Hansen, Dave <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/22 1:12 PM, Chang S. Bae wrote:
>> A couple of other things outside of these patches are still in progress:
>> * Support DM-crypt/cryptsetup for Key Locker usage (Andy Lutomirski)
>>  [2].
>> * Understand decryption under-performance (Eric Biggers and Milan Broz)
>>  [3][4].
> 
> I really like when contributors are clear about why they are posting
> their series and what their expectations are.  This posting leaves me a
> bit confused as to what you expect the maintainers to do.
> 
> Should the maintainers ignore this series until those in-progress things
> are done?  Or, do you expect that this could be merged as-is before
> those are resolved?

Ah, right. Yeah, this is not super clear about that.

I think it makes sense to clarify those two points -- performance implication
and user interaction in the usage case, before considering this feature
support in the mainline.

But I wanted to address feedback on the patches with this posting. 

Hopefully, this clarifies the status of this series.

Thanks,
Chang