On 12/13/21 2:53 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

So if we want to make progress on this we need the first 3 patches
rewviewed by the crypto maintainers.  In fact I'd prefer to get them
merged through the crypto tree as well, and would make sure we have
a branch that pulls them in for the nvme changes.  I'll try to find
some time to review the nvme bits as well.

That is _actually_ being addressed already.
Nicolai Stange send a patchset for ephemeral keys, FFDHE support, and
FIPS-related thingies for the in-kernel DH crypto implementation
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20211209090358.28231-1-nstange@suse.de/ (local)).


This obsoletes my preliminary patches, and I have ported my patchset
to run on top of those.

Question is how to continue from here; I can easily rebase my patchset
and send it relative to Nicolais patches. But then we'll be bound to
the acceptance of those patches, so I'm not quite sure if that's the
best way to proceed.

Don't know if we have a choice here... What is the alternative you are
proposing?

That's the thing, I don't really have a good alternative, either.
It's just that I have so no idea about the crypto subsystem, and
consequently wouldn't know how long we need to wait...

But yeah, Nicolais patchset is far superior to my attempts, so I'd be
happy to ditch my preliminary attempts there.

Can we get a sense from the crypto folks to the state of Nicolais
patchset?

According to Nicolai things look good, rules seem to be that it'll be
accepted if it has positive reviews (which it has) and no-one objected
(which no-one did).
Other than that one would have to ask the maintainer.
Herbert?

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		           Kernel Storage Architect
hare@suse.de			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer