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;
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:28:35 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     Varun Sethi <V.Sethi@nxp.com>
Cc:     Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>,
        "jarkko@kernel.org" <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        "a.fatoum@pengutronix.de" <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
        "Jason@zx2c4.com" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        "jejb@linux.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "zohar@linux.ibm.com" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        "dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "sumit.garg@linaro.org" <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        "david@sigma-star.at" <david@sigma-star.at>,
        "michael@walle.cc" <michael@walle.cc>,
        "john.ernberg@actia.se" <john.ernberg@actia.se>,
        "jmorris@namei.org" <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "serge@hallyn.com" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "j.luebbe@pengutronix.de" <j.luebbe@pengutronix.de>,
        "ebiggers@kernel.org" <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        "richard@nod.at" <richard@nod.at>,
        "keyrings@vger.kernel.org" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sahil Malhotra <sahil.malhotra@nxp.com>,
        Kshitiz Varshney <kshitiz.varshney@nxp.com>,
        Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [RFC PATCH HBK: 2/8] hw-bound-key: flag-is_hbk added
 to the tfm
Message-ID: <YyBbU9sNC88EXFJs@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20220906065157.10662-1-pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>
 <20220906065157.10662-3-pankaj.gupta@nxp.com>
 <YxbsBiCrIQT/0xz6@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <DU2PR04MB86308036FB517BF8CAD3D32795419@DU2PR04MB8630.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <YxhHkz+UlE9XAG/Z@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <DU2PR04MB86308DB7CFBC7A31CEB612D295419@DU2PR04MB8630.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <YxhuC3QlurfSgdXG@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <AM9PR04MB8211C7D59379D4C9F877D20EE8449@AM9PR04MB8211.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <Yx/lc1YjWm9+df1r@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <AM9PR04MB82112828E21FDA2043073216E8479@AM9PR04MB8211.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AM9PR04MB82112828E21FDA2043073216E8479@AM9PR04MB8211.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 10:01:13AM +0000, Varun Sethi wrote:
>
> [Varun] The proposed patchset makes things more scalable. With the hardware backed key flag, there's no need for the security co-processor driver to register separate set of algorithms. This makes things simpler and more scalable for the consumers (OpenSSL, AF_ALG, KTLS etc), as they can continue to use standard set of algorithms and leave the key specific complexity to the driver.

Users already need to specify which driver they are going to use in
order to actually access the hardware keys instead of getting a software
implementation of the same algorithm.

So I don't see what extra burdens are placed on them by the current
regime.

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