Re: [PATCH v2 04/18] crypto: crc32 - don't unnecessarily register arch algorithms

[Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>]

On 11/2/24 5:36 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 07:08:43PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 12:05:01PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>
>>> The only issue resulting from *not* taking this patch is that btrfs
>>> may misidentify the CRC32 implementation as being 'slow' and take an
>>> alternative code path, which does not necessarily result in worse
>>> performance.
>>
>> If we were removing crc32* (or at least crc32*-arch) from the Crypto
>> API then these patches would be redundant.  But if we're keeping them
>> because btrfs uses them then we should definitely make crc32*-arch
>> do the right thing.  IOW they should not be registered if they're
>> the same as crc32*-generic.
>>
>> Thanks,
> 
> I would like to eventually remove crc32 and crc32c from the crypto API, but it
> will take some time to get all the users converted.  If there are AF_ALG users
> it could even be impossible, though the usual culprit, iwd, doesn't appear to
> use any CRCs, so hopefully we are fine there.

Hi,

Please do not forget about dm-integrity, it can use crc32/crc32c for non-cryptographic
integrity through crypto API.
To test it, cryptsetup testsuite should cover these variants (integrity-compat-test).

Also, libcryptsetup can be compiled with userspace kernel crypto (AF_ALG) as a crypto backend.
At least, I think we never used CRC32 though AF_ALG from userspace there...

Thanks,
Milan