Hello, On 17/11/2020 09:30, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Nack. > > This API is meant to take simple integers, so that programmers can use > atomic64_t with it and have safe nonces. I'm also interested in > preserving the API's ability to safely encrypt more than 4 gigs of > data at once. Passing a buffer also encourages people to use > randomized nonces, which isn't really safe. Finally, there are no > in-tree users of 96bit nonces for this interface. If you're after a > cornucopia of compatibility primitives, the ipsec stuff might be more > to your fitting. Or, add a new simple function/api. But adding > complexity to users of the existing one and confusing future users of > it is a non-starter. It's supposed to be deliberately non-awful to > use. > Thanks for explaining the ratio behind this API. At first I thought this API wanted to take over the existing one, hence my attempt of making it more generic and re-use it. But I understand now this was not the goal. I will stick to the classic crypto API then. Best Regards, p.s. I am curious about any use case you may have in mind for encrypting more than 4GB in one go, as there are no users doing that right now. -- Antonio Quartulli
