Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:04:31 +1100
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>,
        Steve deRosier <derosier@cal-sierra.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: aesni - add ccm(aes) algorithm implementation
Message-ID: <20201201220431.GA32072@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20201201194556.5220-1-ardb@kernel.org>
 <20201201215722.GA31941@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <CAMj1kXHb27ugTWuQZhPD0DvjtgYC8t_pj+igqK7dNfh+WsUS4w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHb27ugTWuQZhPD0DvjtgYC8t_pj+igqK7dNfh+WsUS4w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:01:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> This is not the first time this has come up. The point is that CCMP in
> the wireless stack is not used in 99% of the cases, given that any
> wifi hardware built in the last ~10 years can do it in hardware. Only
> in exceptional cases, such as Ben's, is there a need for exercising
> this interface.

Either it matters or it doesn't.  If it doesn't matter why are we
having this dicussion at all? If it does then fixing just one
direction makes no sense.

> Also, care to explain why we have synchronous AEADs in the first place
> if they are not supposed to be used?

Sync AEADs would make sense if you were dealing with a very small
amount of data, e.g., one block.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt