On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 02:58:27PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > This reverts commit a368f43d6e3a001e684e9191a27df384fbff12f5. > > "zlib-deflate" was introduced 6 years ago, but it does not have any > users. So let's remove the generic implementation and the test vectors, > but retain the "zlib-deflate" entry in the testmgr code to avoid > introducing warning messages on systems that implement zlib-deflate in > hardware. > > Note that RFC 1950 which forms the basis of this algorithm dates back to > 1996, and predates RFC 1951, on which the existing IPcomp is based and > which we have supported in the kernel since 2003. So it seems rather > unlikely that we will ever grow the need to support zlib-deflate. > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > crypto/deflate.c | 61 +++++----------- > crypto/testmgr.c | 8 +-- > crypto/testmgr.h | 75 -------------------- > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-) So if this is really unused, it's probably fair to remove it on that basis. However, it's not correct to claim that DEFLATE is obsoleted by zlib (the data format). zlib is just DEFLATE plus a checksum, as is gzip. Many users of zlib or gzip use an external checksum and therefore would be better served by DEFLATE, avoiding a redundant builtin checksum. Typically, people have chosen zlib or gzip simply because their compression library defaulted to it, they didn't understand the difference, and they overlooked that they're paying the price for a redundant builtin checksum. An example of someone doing it right is EROFS, which is working on adding DEFLATE support (not zlib or gzip!): https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230713001441.30462-1-hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Of course, they are using the library API instead of the clumsy crypto API. - Eric
