linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] crypto: virtio: Add ecb aes algo support

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]

Message-ID: <20251210014524.GA4128@sol>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 17:45:24 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Gonglei <arei.gonglei@...wei.com>,
	"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] crypto: virtio: Add ecb aes algo support

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 09:36:06AM +0800, Bibo Mao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2025/12/10 上午7:25, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 10:22:58AM +0800, Bibo Mao wrote:
> > > ECB AES also is added here, its ivsize is zero and name is different
> > > compared with CBC AES algo.
> > 
> > What is the use case for this feature?Currently qemu builtin backend and
> > openssl afalg only support CBC AES,
> it depends on modified qemu and openssl to test this.
> 
> Maybe this patch adding ECB AES algo can be skipped now, it is just an
> example, the final target is to add SM4 cipher.

There's no need to add useless features.  The title of your patchset is
"crypto: virtio: Add ecb aes algo support".  So it sounds like the main
point of your patchset is to add a useless feature?  If there are
actually unrelated fixes you want, you should send those separately.

As for SM4 support (which mode?), if you really want that (you
shouldn't), why not use the existing CPU accelerated implementation?

- Eric