netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 00/23] WireGuard: Secure Network Tunnel

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: <7854782.OKhPC64esT@blindfold>
Date:   Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:53:07 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 00/23] WireGuard: Secure Network Tunnel

Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2018, 15:46:29 CEST schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:38 PM Richard Weinberger
> <richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
> > So we will have two competing crypo stacks in the kernel?
> > Having a lightweight crypto API is a good thing but I really don't like the idea
> > of having zinc parallel to the existing crypto stack.
> 
> No, as you've seen in this patchset, the dynamic dispatch crypto API
> can trivially be done on top of Zinc. So each time we introduce a new
> primitive to Zinc that's also in the dynamic dispatch API, we
> reimplement the current crypto API in terms of Zinc. Check out the two
> patches in this series that do this; it's quite clean and sleek.

This is why I was asking. Your statement and the code didn't match for me.
 
> > And I strongly vote that Herbert Xu shall remain the maintainer of the whole
> > crypto system (including zinc!) in the kernel.
> 
> No, sorry, we intend to maintain the code we've written. But I am
> amenable to taking a tree-route into upstream based on whatever makes
> most sense with merge conflicts and such.
 
So, you will be a sub-maintainer below Herbert's crypto, that's fine.
What you wrote sounded like a parallel world...

Thanks,
//richard