Re: IMA and PQC
Stefan Berger <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.keyrings,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.kernel.vger.linux-integrity,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-modules |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2/3/26 8:32 AM, Coiby Xu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 09:31:26PM +0100, Johannes Wiesböck wrote: >> Hi all, > > Hi Johannes, > >> >> we conducted an evaluation regarding PQC use in IMA last year (see [1] >> for all >> details) where we also considered the interplay of different PQC >> signatures and >> file systems (ext4, btrfs, XFS, f2fs). > > Thanks for sharing this comprehensive study! There are many nuances in > this research paper! > >> >> Coiby Xu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> According to my experiments done so far, for verification speed, >>> ML-DSA-65 is consistently faster than ECDSA P-384 which is used by >>> current CentOS/RHEL to sign files in a package. >> >> Regarding performance, similar to Coiby, we found that all variants of >> ML-DSA >> consistently outperformed ECDSA P-256. > > Glad to know ML-DSA is also faster than ECDSA P-256! To avoid duplicate work: Is either one of you planning on writing patches for IMA to use ML-DSA and convert the current ML-DSA to also support HashML? I had done the work on this before and could dig out the patches again... Stefan