Re: [PATCH] crypto: qce - Replace with stub driver

Demi Marie Obenour <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 8/13/26 16:10, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 03:09:36PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>>> SM8650 with the QCE is FIPS 140-2 certified and apparently this makes
>>> a difference. Don't ask me if that makes sense, I don't claim to understand
>>> the legal aspects of it.
>>
>> That sounds like the kind of thing that would cause someone to use
>> a worse implementation of cryptographic algorithms 🙂.
>>
>> For what it is worth, many common uses of kernel cryptography can't
>> use the QCE.  This notably applies to the CSPRNG (/dev/urandom etc),
>> storage encryption, and AF_ALG.  Therefore, I expect that anyone who
>> needs FIPS 140 compliance with Linux needs to ensure that the software
>> crypto is certified, as that's what actually gets used in most cases.
> 
> Well there's that, and also the Inline Crypto Engine (which is actually
> being used and is unrelated to QCE) has its own FIPS certification.
> 
> Which upstream kernel feature, if any, is QCE being used with?  I have
> asked this multiple times and still not gotten an answer.
Historically AF_ALG has been used to access FIPS-certified crypto
from userspace, but that no longer can be used with QCE.  Most kernel
features reject CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC, CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY, or both.
If I exclude tests and fallback paths of other drivers, that leaves
crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c (hashing), BPF, MACsec, OpenVPN
data channel offload, ecryptfs, Ceph, SMB, IPsec, mac802154, TIPC, TLS,
and crypto/kpp.c.  AF_ALG only allows offload drivers for cbc(paes),
which QCE doesn't implement.  QCE is broken with IPsec and probably
some other networking protocols, as it would wind up taking a mutex
in softirq context.

Is there anything on that list that you don't plan to convert
to the crypto library?
> Does the perceived value perhaps come merely from "offering" FIPS
> certified cryptography on the system -- then not actually using it in
> practice?  That can maybe be understandable in some cases, but it's also
> not really something that belongs upstream where actual technical merit
> is expected.  Also, could ICE be enough to check that checkbox?

I agree with all of these points.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=tY7Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.