On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:34:23PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 08:32:55PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:29:20PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Move the definition of crypto_simd_disabled_for_test into > > > lib/crypto/utils.c so that it can be accessed by library code. > > > > > > This is needed when code that is shared between a traditional crypto API > > > implementation and a library implementation is built-in, but > > > CRYPTO_ALGAPI=m. The x86 blake2s previously was an example of this > > > (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20220517033630.1182-1-gaochao49@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u). > > > Although that case was resolved by removing the blake2s shash support, > > > this problem could easily come back in the future, so let's address it. > > > > I'm not sure I see the reason in general for a utility library rather > > than doing these piecemeal like the rest of lib functions. Why is crypto > > special here? But in particular to this patch: nothing is actually using > > crypto_simd_disabled_for_test in lib/crypto, right? So is this > > necessary? > > Well, this is what Herbert wanted: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/YtEgzHuuMts0YBCz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It's > subjective, but for now I think I prefer this approach too, since the utility > functions are so small and are widely used. A whole module is overkill for just > a few lines of code. > > The commit message answers your second and third questions. > Herbert, any thoughts on this? Note: I forgot to put a MODULE_LICENSE in the new module, so I'll need to resend this patchset even if there are no other issues. - Eric
