Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Sender: Herbert Xu <herbertx@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Sep 2023 17:29:58 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] crypto: Add lskcipher API type
Message-ID: <ZQLSlqJs///qoGCY@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20230914082828.895403-1-herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <CAMj1kXHLZ8kZWL3npQRavdzjRtv_uiRKmKDeXaQhhy3m4LvK+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZQLK0injXi7K3X1b@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <CAMj1kXHvhrUyShdSNCJeOh8WVXFqPPu+KLh16V6fJJdQKhPv1A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHvhrUyShdSNCJeOh8WVXFqPPu+KLh16V6fJJdQKhPv1A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 11:18:00AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> So this means that the base name will be aes, not ecb(aes), right?
> What about cbc and ctr? It makes sense for a single lskcipher to
> implement all three of those at least, so that algorithms like XTS and
> GCM can be implemented cheaply using generic templates, without the
> need to call into the lskcipher for each block of input.

You can certainly implement all three with arch-specific code
but I didn't think there was a need to do this for the generic
version.

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