Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 15:55:50 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc:     palmer@dabbelt.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        davem@davemloft.net, conor.dooley@microchip.com,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, christoph.muellner@vrull.eu,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Implement GCM ghash using Zbc and Zbkb extensions
Message-ID: <20230426225550.GA65659@sol.localdomain>
References: <20230329140642.2186644-1-heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230329140642.2186644-1-heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Heiko,

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 04:06:38PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu>
> 
> This was originally part of my vector crypto series, but was part
> of a separate openssl merge request implementing GCM ghash as using
> non-vector extensions.
> 
> As that pull-request
>     https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20078
> got merged recently into openssl, we could also check if this could
> go into the kernel as well and provide a base for further accelerated
> cryptographic support.

One more question.  It seems that this patchset uses the RISC-V scalar crypto
extensions.  I've been hearing rumors that the RISC-V scalar crypto extensions
have been superseded by the vector crypto extensions.  Is that accurate?  I
wonder if it's worth putting effort into implementations that use the scalar
crypto extensions when they might already be obsolete.

- Eric