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]
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:44:56 +0200
From:   Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        davem@...emloft.net, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, christoph.muellner@...ll.eu,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Implement GCM ghash using Zbc and Zbkb extensions

Hi Eric,

Am Dienstag, 13. Juni 2023, 05:02:16 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers:
> Hi Heiko,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:04:38PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu>
> > 
> > This was originally part of my vector crypto series, but was part
> > of a separate openssl merge request implementing GCM ghash as using
> > non-vector extensions.
> > 
> > As that pull-request
> >     https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20078
> > got merged recently into openssl, we could also check if this could
> > go into the kernel as well and provide a base for further accelerated
> > cryptographic support.
> 
> I'm still a bit skeptical of the usefulness of a standalone "ghash"
> implementation, when in practice it will only be used as part of "gcm(aes)".
> Directly implementing "gcm(aes)" (instead of relying on crypto/gcm.c to compose
> "ghash" and "ctr(aes)") also allows some performance optimizations.
> 
> I asked about this on v4
> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/ZCSG71bRuTzVutdm@gmail.com/),
> but I didn't receive a response.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?

somehow I always seem to overlook this when adapting the series :-(

I guess for me the main gcm was always a stepping stone to get
started and extend later. This is my first rodeo with crypto stuff
in the kernel, so this looks like a manageable chunk and as can be
seen by the discussion we had about licensing brings enough topics
on its own :-) .


Heiko


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ