Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date: 2018-09-13 14:18:46
Also in:
linux-crypto, lkml
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 1:45 AM Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:
I'm not convinced that there's any real need for *all* crypto algorithms to move into lib/zinc or to move at all. As I see it, there are two classes of crypto algorithms in the kernel: a) Crypto that is used by code that chooses its algorithm statically and wants synchronous operations. These include everything in drivers/char/random.c, but also a bunch of various networking things that are hardcoded and basically everything that uses stack buffers. (This means it includes all the code that I broke when I did VMAP_STACK. Sign.)
Right, exactly. This is what will wind up using Zinc. I'm working on an example usage of this for v4 of the patch submission, which you can ogle in a preview here if you're curious: https://git.zx2c4.com/linux-dev/commit/?h=big_key_rewrite 28 insertions, 206 deletions :-D
b) Crypto that is used dynamically. This includes dm-crypt (aes-xts-plain64, aes-cbc-essiv, etc), all the ALG_IF interfaces, a lot of IPSEC stuff, possibly KCM, and probably many more. These will get comparatively little benefit from being converted to a zinc-like interface. For some of these cases, it wouldn't make any sense at all to convert them. Certainly the ones that do async hardware crypto using DMA engines will never look at all like zinc, even under the hood.
Right, this is what the crypto API will continue to be used for.
I think that, as a short-term goal, it makes a lot of sense to have implementations of the crypto that *new* kernel code (like Wireguard) wants to use in style (a) that live in /lib, and it obviously makes sense to consolidate their implementations with the crypto/ implementations in a timely manner. As a medium-term goal, adding more algorithms as needed for things that could use the simpler APIs (Bluetooth, perhaps) would make sense.
Agreed 100%. With regards to "consolidate their implementations" -- I've actually already done this after your urging yesterday, and so that will be a part of v4.
But I see no reason at all that /lib should ever contain a grab-bag of crypto implementations just for the heck of it. They should have real in-kernel users IMO. And this means that there will probably always be some crypto implementations in crypto/ for things like aes-xts.
Right, precisely. Jason