linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] lib/crc: improve how arch-optimized code is integrated

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]

Message-ID: <aEhtyvBajGE80_2Z@zx2c4.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:39:22 -0600
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] lib/crc: improve how arch-optimized code is
 integrated

On Sun, Jun 08, 2025 at 04:48:17PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 05:47:02PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 01:04:42PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > Having arch-specific code outside arch/ was somewhat controversial when
> > > Zinc proposed it back in 2018.  But I don't think the concerns are
> > > warranted.  It's better from a technical perspective, as it enables the
> > > improvements mentioned above.  This model is already successfully used
> > > in other places in the kernel such as lib/raid6/.  The community of each
> > > architecture still remains free to work on the code, even if it's not in
> > > arch/.  At the time there was also a desire to put the library code in
> > > the same files as the old-school crypto API, but that was a mistake; now
> > > that the library is separate, that's no longer a constraint either.
> > 
> > I can't express how happy I am to see this revived. It's clearly the
> > right way forward and makes it a lot simpler for us to dispatch to
> > various arch implementations and also is organizationally simpler.
> > 
> > Jason
> 
> Thanks!  Can I turn that into an Acked-by?

Took me a little while longer to fully review it. Sure,

    Acked-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>

Side note: I wonder about eventually turning some of the static branches
into static calls.

Jason