Ard,
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 07:47:44AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 07:37, Vitaly Chikunov <vt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Herbert,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 02:00:04PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:49:41PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In my patch series I initially had registered the akciphers under the names
> > > > ecc-nist-p192 and ecc-nist-p256 but now, in V4, joined them together as
> > > > 'ecdsa'. This may be too generic for a name. Maybe it should be called
> > > > ecsda-nist for the NIST family.
> > >
> > > What I'm proposing is specifying the curve in the name as well, i.e.,
> > > ecdsa-nist-p192 instead of just ecdsa or ecdsa-nist.
> > >
> > > This simplifies the task of handling hardware that only supports a
> > > subset of curves.
> >
> > So, if some implementation supports multiple curves (like EC-RDSA
> > currently supports 5 curves), it should add 5 ecrdsa-{a,b,c,..}
> > algorithms with actually the same top level implementation?
> > Right?
> >
>
> Yes. The only difference will be the init() function, which can be
> used to set the TFM properties that define which curve is being used.
> The other routines can be generic, and refer to those properties if
> the behavior is curve-specific.
Thanks. This may be good!
JFYI. There is possible non-hardware accelerated implementations
for ECC algorithms which (perhaps) may never go to the kernel source,
because they are generated code. For example
https://gitlab.com/nisec/ecckiila
