On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 at 09:06, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:18:05PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > > Does that mean you are bringing back blkcipher? I think that would the > > right thing to do tbh, although it might make sense to enhance > > skcipher (and aead) to support this. > > I haven't gone into that kind of detail yet but my first impression > is that it would be the analogue of shash and skcipher would simply > wrap around it just like ahash wraps around shash. > > > Could we perhaps update struct skcipher_request so it can describe > > virtually mapped address ranges, but permit this only for synchronous > > implementations? Then, we could update the skcipher walker code to > > produce a single walk step covering the entire range, and just use the > > provided virtual addresses directly, rather than going through a > > mapping interface? > > Since skcipher doesn't actually need to carry any state with it > I'd like to avoid having an skcipher_request at all. Doesn't that depend on the implementation? It might have a >0 size request context size, no? Or do we just allocate that on the stack?
