On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:44:46AM +0000, Kim, David wrote: > > > > The driver code for the hardware is straightforward and does not > > > contain any cryptographic components as the cryptography is handled > > > within the hardware's secure boundary. We have no plans to use the > > > linux kernel crypto APIs as our customers require compliance to the FIPS > > 140 standard or the eIDAS regulations. > > > > But what I said was, you NEED to use the linux kernel crypto apis as you need > > to not try to create your own. > > > > Just because this is the way you did it before, does not mean it is the correct > > thing to do. > > > > So what is wrong if you do use the existing apis? What is preventing you > > from doing that? > > > > Sorry Greg but I'm not understanding what the issue is. Can you please explain a > bit more what you mean with the apis? > > Our driver code is just a tube between proprietary code on the host machine and > proprietary code on the HSM. We are not trying to create our own linux crypto > apis because all the crypto stuff is happening in the existing proprietary code. If your device does "crypto", then it should tie into the existing kernel crypto apis so that your, and everyone elses, userspace code also uses the correct, existing, userspace crypto apis. We do not want to create a one-off-vendor-specific api for only one piece of hardware out there. That way lies madness and is not how we do things in the kernel whenever possible. thanks, greg k-h
