[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pzT=bxuEVVGDOJkm2PaEAVjbo=8na7URy=g-1sKvv0yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 15:45:56 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Subject: Re: Re: Remaining crypto API regressions with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
Hi Herbert,
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> As for AEAD we never had a sync interface to begin with and I
> don't think I'm going to add one.
That's too bad to hear. I hope you'll reconsider. Modern cryptographic
design is heading more and more in the direction of using AEADs for
interesting things, and having a sync interface would be a lot easier
for implementing these protocols. In the same way many protocols need
a hash of some data, now protocols often want some particular data
encrypted with an AEAD using a particular key and nonce and AD. One
protocol that comes to mind is Noise [1].
I know that in my own [currently external to the tree] kernel code, I
just forego the use of the crypto API all together, and one of the
primary reasons for that is lack of a sync interface for AEADs. When I
eventually send this upstream, presumably everyone will want me to use
the crypto API, and having a sync AEAD interface would be personally
helpful for that. I guess I could always write the sync interface
myself, but I imagine you'd prefer having the design control etc.
Jason
[1] http://noiseprotocol.org/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
