On 12/13/21 2:53 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >>>>> So if we want to make progress on this we need the first 3 patches >>>>> rewviewed by the crypto maintainers. In fact I'd prefer to get them >>>>> merged through the crypto tree as well, and would make sure we have >>>>> a branch that pulls them in for the nvme changes. I'll try to find >>>>> some time to review the nvme bits as well. >>>>> >>>> That is _actually_ being addressed already. >>>> Nicolai Stange send a patchset for ephemeral keys, FFDHE support, and >>>> FIPS-related thingies for the in-kernel DH crypto implementation >>>> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20211209090358.28231-1-nstange@xxxxxxx/). >>>> >>>> >>>> This obsoletes my preliminary patches, and I have ported my patchset >>>> to run on top of those. >>>> >>>> Question is how to continue from here; I can easily rebase my patchset >>>> and send it relative to Nicolais patches. But then we'll be bound to >>>> the acceptance of those patches, so I'm not quite sure if that's the >>>> best way to proceed. >>> >>> Don't know if we have a choice here... What is the alternative you are >>> proposing? >> >> That's the thing, I don't really have a good alternative, either. >> It's just that I have so no idea about the crypto subsystem, and >> consequently wouldn't know how long we need to wait... >> >> But yeah, Nicolais patchset is far superior to my attempts, so I'd be >> happy to ditch my preliminary attempts there. > > Can we get a sense from the crypto folks to the state of Nicolais > patchset? According to Nicolai things look good, rules seem to be that it'll be accepted if it has positive reviews (which it has) and no-one objected (which no-one did). Other than that one would have to ask the maintainer. Herbert? Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer
