On 04/03/2018 12:19 PM, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 08:30:46PM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: >> However, as it uses the exact same mechanism of the regular xts-aes-ccree >> but takes the key from another source, I've marked it with a test of >> alg_test_null() on the premise that if the xts-aes-ccree works, so must this. > Well it appears to be stubbed out as cc_is_hw_key always returns > false. > >>> Are there other crypto drivers doing this? >> I thought the exact same thing until I ran into a presentation about the s390 >> secure keys implementation. I basically imitated their use (or abuse?) >> of the Crypto API >> assuming it is the way to go. >> >> Take a look at arch/s390/crypto/paes_s390.c > It's always nice to discover code that was never reviewed. > > The general approach seems sane though. > >> Anyway, if this is not the way to go I'd be more than happy to do whatever >> work is needed to create the right interface. >> >> PS. I'd be out of the office and away from email access to the coming week, so >> kindly excuse any delay in response. > I think it's fine. However, I don't really like the idea of everyone > coming up with their own "paes", i.e., your patch's use of "haes". > It should be OK to just use paes for everyone, no? > > As to your patch specifically, there is one issue where you're > directly dereferencing the key as a struct. This is a no-no because > the key may have come from user-space. You must treat it as a > binary blob. The s390 code seems to do this correctly. > > Cheers, I would be happy to have a generic kernel interface for some kind of key token as a binary blob. I am also open to use the kernel key ring for future extensions. But please understand we needed a way to support our hardware keys and I think the chosen design isn't so bad. regards Harald Freudenberger using the kernel key ring in future extensions.
