On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 15:40, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 03:02:04PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > It also depend on how realistic it is that we will need to support > > arbitrary sector sizes in the future. I mean, if we decide today that > > essiv() uses an implicit sector size of 4k, we can always add > > essiv64k() later, rather than adding lots of complexity now that we > > are never going to use. Note that ESSIV is already more or less > > deprecated, so there is really no point in inventing these weird and > > wonderful things if we want people to move to XTS and plain IV > > generation instead. > > Well whatever we do for ESSIV should also extend to other IV > generators in dm-crypt so that potentially we can have a single > interface for dm-crypt multi-sector processing in future (IOW > you don't have special code for ESSIV vs. other algos). > > That is why we should get the ESSIV interface right as it could > serve as an example for future implementations. > > What do the dm-crypt people think? Are you ever going to need > processing in units other than 4K? > We'd need at least 512 and 4k for dm-crypt, but I don't think the sector size is limited at all tbh
