Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1d1522c6-7f6b-7023-9e66-a05ac5a5a0be@grimberg.me>
Date:   Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:09:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/12] nvme: In-band authentication support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Niolai Stange <nstange@suse.com>
Cc:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@wdc.com>, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
References: <20211202152358.60116-1-hare@suse.de>
 <20211213080853.GA21223@lst.de>
 <9853d36a-036c-7f2b-5fb4-b3fb4bae473f@suse.de>
 <4328e4f0-9674-9362-4ed5-89ec7edba4a2@grimberg.me>
 <56f1ce1c-2272-bed2-fd6b-642854b612bb@suse.de>
 <483836f5-f850-6eac-8c38-3f03db3189ab@grimberg.me>
 <0c4613ff-ba30-c812-a6e9-1954d77b1d1b@suse.de>
 <ad9af172-4b7b-4206-feab-8ab54ba7cfe5@grimberg.me>
 <e2ccd5bf-c13f-8660-c4c0-31a1053846ed@suse.de>
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
In-Reply-To: <e2ccd5bf-c13f-8660-c4c0-31a1053846ed@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


>>>>>>> Question is how to continue from here; I can easily rebase my 
>>>>>>> patchset
>>>>>>> and send it relative to Nicolais patches. But then we'll be bound to
>>>>>>> the acceptance of those patches, so I'm not quite sure if that's the
>>>>>>> best way to proceed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know if we have a choice here... What is the alternative you 
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> proposing?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the thing, I don't really have a good alternative, either.
>>>>> It's just that I have so no idea about the crypto subsystem, and
>>>>> consequently wouldn't know how long we need to wait...
>>>>>
>>>>> But yeah, Nicolais patchset is far superior to my attempts, so I'd be
>>>>> happy to ditch my preliminary attempts there.
>>>>
>>>> Can we get a sense from the crypto folks to the state of Nicolais
>>>> patchset?
>>>
>>> According to Nicolai things look good, rules seem to be that it'll be
>>> accepted if it has positive reviews (which it has) and no-one objected
>>> (which no-one did).
>>> Other than that one would have to ask the maintainer.
>>> Herbert?
>>
>> Any updates on this?
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Herbert suggested reworking the patch, and make ffdhe a separate 
> algorithm (instead of having enums to specify the values for the 
> existing DH algorithm).
> Discussion is ongoing :-(

Hannes and co,

Do you know what is the state of this dependency? Or when should
we expect to revisit this patch set?