[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXHced1khwsrHqMUmECh_7irYOckFd+Sx3z9KSmsL7tPxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 22:13:52 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore: migrate to crypto acomp interface (take 2)
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 22:11, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:45:08PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 21:40, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > Okay, so strictly speaking, eliminating the per-CPU allocation is an
> > > improvement. Keeping scomp and doing in-place compression will let
> > > pstore use "any" compressions method.
> >
> > I'm not following the point you are making here.
>
> Sorry, I mean to say that if I leave scomp in pstore, nothing is "worse"
> (i.e. the per-cpu allocation is present in both scomp and acomp). i.e.
> no regression either way, but if we switch to a distinct library call,
> it's an improvement on the memory utilization front.
>
> > > Is there a crypto API that does _not_ preallocate the per-CPU stuff?
> > > Because, as you say, it's a huge amount of memory on the bigger
> > > systems...
> >
> > The library interface for each of the respective algorithms.
>
> Where is the crypto API for just using the library interfaces, so I
> don't have to be tied to a specific algo?
>
That doesn't exist, that is the point.
But how does the algo matter when you are dealing with mere kilobytes
of ASCII text?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists