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;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZDkUSESImVSUX0RW@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <ZDkUSESImVSUX0RW@gondor.apana.org.au> <ZDi1qjVpcpr2BZfN@gondor.apana.org.au> <48886D84-1A04-4B07-A666-BB56684E759F@oracle.com> <380323.1681314997@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1078650.1681394138@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1235770.1681462057@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Did the in-kernel Camellia or CMAC crypto implementation break?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1239034.1681467430.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 11:17:10 +0100
Message-ID: <1239035.1681467430@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > Actually, I was wondering about that.  I see that all the testing data
> > seems to be statically loaded in testmgr.[ch], even if the algorithms to
> > be tested are resident in modules that aren't loaded yet (so it's kind of
> > test "on demand").  I guess it can't be split up amongst the algorithm
> > modules as some of the tests require stuff from multiple modules (eg. aes
> > + cbs + cts).
> 
> Yes I've been meaning to split this up so they're colocated with
> the generic implementation.

Might be easier if I wait to see how you do that.

> Unless this code has at least two users it's probably not worth
> it (but there are exceptions, e.g. we did a one-user algorithm
> for dm-crypt).

There would be just two users at the moment: sunrpc/nfs and rxrpc/afs.  I
don't know if cifs or ceph could make use of it.

David