Re: [PATCH] crypto: qce - Replace with stub driver
Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMRc=McL5QQRk8C8zzkHm+FUj-SAVi5PLJr2pXo8eNpaxXuALg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 19:12:42 +0200, Eric Biggers <[email protected]> said: > Well, that again brings us back to the core issue which is the actual > current functionality of the driver, which is to register crypto_ahash, > crypto_skcipher, and crypto_aead algorithms with the crypto API. > > It isn't useful functionality, but rather just a footgun that allows > users to misconfigure their systems, an issue I've seen happen multiple > times. CPU-based implementations of *every one* of those algorithms > already exist. On a typical SoC that has this hardware, the CPU-based > implementations are ~50x faster as shown in tests. Pending patches make > the difference even greater at ~100x. And the CPU-based implementations > actually use significantly less CPU time, as well. There seems to be no > path forward for significantly fixing this issue, either. > You've repeated your point about performance several times. Nobody ever said you're wrong. Performance is not the only reason for choosing one provider over another. > An alternative we could consider is dropping the cra_priority further, > to further decrease the chance that these algorithms are used. But I > feel it's hard to justify why they're there at all, if the rationale for > keeping them is "we made sure that no one can actually use them, so they > can't be causing problems anymore"... > No, the rationale has never been this. FWIW it can be that it's used for testing of the crypto module on a supported platform and that is already enough of a reason to keep it upstream. As I've said before: we don't just drop maintained drivers from linux. Herbert: it's been a while, would you mind chiming in and deciding one way or the other, as Greg seems to have deferred to your judgement? Thanks, Bartosz