From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Franzki <ifranzki@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: testmgr - reinstate kconfig support for fast tests only
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 20:14:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250611201408.GB4097002@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DAJYOYMK9UJD.LB0N2L64FFA@cknow.org>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 09:47:27PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Wed Jun 11, 2025 at 9:04 PM CEST, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 08:53:17PM +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> >> I was about to respond to your reply, but I guess this may be a better
> >> fit for it. The TL;DR: version is this:
> >>
> >> If you think distros shouldn't enable it, as you initially clearly
> >> described and it seems to me you still think so, the right thing for
> >> distros to do, is to disable those test. Which in turn means the fast
> >> tests should not be reinstated (?).
> >
> > I mean, not enabling the tests in production is how it should be.
> >
> > But Fedora already enabled CRYPTO_SELFTESTS, apparently because of FIPS
> > (https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/3886).
>
> That is recent and there's at least 1 person I recognize as having
> proper expertise in this matter ;-)
FWIW, here's an example from just today where the crypto self-tests prevented a
buggy driver from being used in Debian:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20250611101750.6839-1-AlanSong-oc@zhaoxin.com/
> > throw untested and broken hardware drivers over the wall at users. As long as
>
> Only speaking for myself, my *assumption* is that crypto functionality
> in hardware is/should be faster and would lessen the load on the CPU
> (which with several SBCs seems really worthwhile).
Often the hardware offloads are actually slower. They require sending the CPU
an interrupt once the operation is done, which has a lot of overhead. They also
tend to be optimized for throughput rather than latency, and only provide good
throughput when given a large number of concurrent requests.
Inline encryption does actually work, but that is a separate type of accelerator
and not what we're talking about here.
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-11 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-11 17:55 [PATCH] crypto: testmgr - reinstate kconfig support for fast tests only Eric Biggers
2025-06-11 18:53 ` Diederik de Haas
2025-06-11 19:04 ` Eric Biggers
2025-06-11 19:47 ` Diederik de Haas
2025-06-11 20:14 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2025-06-12 5:55 ` Herbert Xu
2025-06-12 6:09 ` Eric Biggers
2025-06-12 9:03 ` Herbert Xu
2025-06-12 17:20 ` Eric Biggers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250611201408.GB4097002@google.com \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=didi.debian@cknow.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=ifranzki@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox