linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 5/8] crypto: Add ML-DSA crypto

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: <CAHmME9oK-e2BOXspf89McOFOiq8wp2-QgHsumK6r9kL5FyeMig@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 21:10:33 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, 
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, 
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...nel.org>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, 
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, 
	Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, 
	keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/8] crypto: Add ML-DSA crypto_sig support

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 8:54 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > Still not really sure what the point is.  There's only one user of
> > > > crypto_sig, and it could just call the ML-DSA functions directly.
> > >
> > > Is it your aim to kill off the crypto/ dir and all the (old) crypto API?
> >
> > Probably entirely killing off the old API is going to be fraught
> > because its abstraction has leaked out to userspace. But to the extent
> > we can minimize its use over time, I think that's a good thing. Even
> > for crypto usages that generalize to a few different ciphers of one
> > variety or another, I think being explicit about which ciphers and
> > having purpose-built dispatchers is usually a better route.
>
> How are you proposing handling the autoloading feature of the old API?

I don't know. Not all features will have direct replacements. Not all
usages will be replaced. Not all use cases benefit from being
replaced. You asked if it was an "aim." I replied by telling you that
I think killing it is going to be difficult, but that over time, usage
will decline. I think that'll be a natural thing. For now, when
something uses the library API, there's a pretty easy and obvious case
to be made for it, as there are still such obvious low hanging use
cases. I suppose in a while, we might run out of those perhaps. But
that hasn't happened yet, I guess.

Jason