netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v9 00/19] 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: <CAHmME9pAgi=Li_C5xEq7EfmNq5p4BRc3rDxXjiz+xz0rSYikXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:57:20 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Samuel Neves <samuel.c.p.neves@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 00/19] WireGuard: Secure Network Tunnel

Hey Herbert,

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:52 PM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Sorry but adding new implementations of chacha20/poly1305 without
> removing the existing ones is not acceptable.  I really think
> we ought to separate the zinc interface from these new crypto
> implementations.  They have nothing to do with each other.
>
> As we've been stuck on this point for so long, let's get the
> ball rolling by first merging just the zinc interface itself
> with the existing chacha20/poly1305 code.  Then we can replace
> these implementations with your implementations without getting
> bogged down by all these other discussions.
>
> AFAICS once we resolve Thomas's concerns with regards to the simd
> patch, then we can merge the zinc interface right away and go from
> there.

I think we're slightly closer to being same page, but I haven't
followed up here yet because I was waiting for something else first.

Your previous patchset left out a few implementations and wasn't
totally complete with regards to the glue code. I'm going to whip
something up now that is Zinc, but where there's already an existing
assembly implementation in the tree (i.e. Martin's code), it uses that
instead of what I've been posting until now. Then, after that lands, I
can post stand-alone patches for replacing the various
implementations, and we can discuss those separately, alongside all
the various discussion of verification and benchmarks and so forth.

So, I'll have something to examine somewhat soon. Working on it now.

Jason