On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 3:32 PM Vadim Fedorenko
<vadim.fedorenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2023 18:23, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 2:55 PM Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> +/**
> >> + * struct bpf_crypto_lskcipher_ctx - refcounted BPF sync skcipher context structure
> >> + * @tfm: The pointer to crypto_sync_skcipher struct.
> >> + * @rcu: The RCU head used to free the crypto context with RCU safety.
> >> + * @usage: Object reference counter. When the refcount goes to 0, the
> >> + * memory is released back to the BPF allocator, which provides
> >> + * RCU safety.
> >> + */
> >> +struct bpf_crypto_lskcipher_ctx {
> >> + struct crypto_lskcipher *tfm;
> >> + struct rcu_head rcu;
> >> + refcount_t usage;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +__bpf_kfunc_start_defs();
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * bpf_crypto_lskcipher_ctx_create() - Create a mutable BPF crypto context.
> >
> > Let's drop 'lskcipher' from the kfunc names and ctx struct.
> > bpf users don't need to know the internal implementation details.
> > bpf_crypto_encrypt/decrypt() is clear enough.
>
> The only reason I added it was the existence of AEAD subset of crypto
> API. And this subset can also be implemented in bpf later, and there
> will be inconsistency in naming then if we add aead in future names.
> WDYT?
You mean future async apis ? Just bpf_crypto_encrypt_async() ?
