Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] crypto: lib - move crypto_simd_disabled_for_test into utils

[Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:34:23PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 08:32:55PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:29:20PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > > 
> > > Move the definition of crypto_simd_disabled_for_test into
> > > lib/crypto/utils.c so that it can be accessed by library code.
> > > 
> > > This is needed when code that is shared between a traditional crypto API
> > > implementation and a library implementation is built-in, but
> > > CRYPTO_ALGAPI=m.  The x86 blake2s previously was an example of this
> > > (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20220517033630.1182-1-gaochao49@huawei.com/T/#u).
> > > Although that case was resolved by removing the blake2s shash support,
> > > this problem could easily come back in the future, so let's address it.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I see the reason in general for a utility library rather
> > than doing these piecemeal like the rest of lib functions. Why is crypto
> > special here? But in particular to this patch: nothing is actually using
> > crypto_simd_disabled_for_test in lib/crypto, right? So is this
> > necessary?
> 
> Well, this is what Herbert wanted:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/YtEgzHuuMts0YBCz@gondor.apana.org.au.  It's
> subjective, but for now I think I prefer this approach too, since the utility
> functions are so small and are widely used.  A whole module is overkill for just
> a few lines of code.
> 
> The commit message answers your second and third questions.
> 

Herbert, any thoughts on this?

Note: I forgot to put a MODULE_LICENSE in the new module, so I'll need to resend
this patchset even if there are no other issues.

- Eric