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]
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 08:56:37 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, 
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/2] bpf: add skcipher API support to TC/XDP programs

On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 3:46 PM Vadim Fedorenko
<vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2023 18:35, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 3:32 PM Vadim Fedorenko
> > <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18/11/2023 18:23, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 2:55 PM Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * struct bpf_crypto_lskcipher_ctx - refcounted BPF sync skcipher context structure
> >>>> + * @tfm:       The pointer to crypto_sync_skcipher struct.
> >>>> + * @rcu:       The RCU head used to free the crypto context with RCU safety.
> >>>> + * @usage:     Object reference counter. When the refcount goes to 0, the
> >>>> + *             memory is released back to the BPF allocator, which provides
> >>>> + *             RCU safety.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +struct bpf_crypto_lskcipher_ctx {
> >>>> +       struct crypto_lskcipher *tfm;
> >>>> +       struct rcu_head rcu;
> >>>> +       refcount_t usage;
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>> +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
> >>>> +
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * bpf_crypto_lskcipher_ctx_create() - Create a mutable BPF crypto context.
> >>>
> >>> Let's drop 'lskcipher' from the kfunc names and ctx struct.
> >>> bpf users don't need to know the internal implementation details.
> >>> bpf_crypto_encrypt/decrypt() is clear enough.
> >>
> >> The only reason I added it was the existence of AEAD subset of crypto
> >> API. And this subset can also be implemented in bpf later, and there
> >> will be inconsistency in naming then if we add aead in future names.
> >> WDYT?
> >
> > You mean future async apis ? Just bpf_crypto_encrypt_async() ?
>
> Well, not only async. It's about Authenticated Encryption With
> Associated Data (AEAD) Cipher API defined in crypto/aead.h. It's
> ciphers with additional hmac function, like
> 'authenc(hmac(sha256),cbc(aes))'. It has very similar API with only
> difference of having Authenticated data in the encrypted block.

and ? I'm not following what you're trying to say.
Where is the inconsistency ?
My point again is that lskcipher vs skcipher vs foo is an implementation
detail that shouldn't be exposed in the name.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists