Re: [PATCH V8 1/5] crypto: Multi-buffer encryption infrastructure support

[Herbert Xu]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 06:40:17PM +0000, Dey, Megha wrote:
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Herbert Xu [mailto:herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 7:54 AM
> >To: Dey, Megha <megha.dey@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 1/5] crypto: Multi-buffer encryption infrastructure
> >support
> >
> >I have taken a deeper look and I'm even more convinced now that mcryptd is
> >simply not needed in your current model.
> >
> >The only reason you would need mcryptd is if you need to limit the rate of
> >requests going into the underlying mb algorithm.
> >
> >However, it doesn't do that all.  Even though it seems to have a batch size of
> >10, but because it immediately reschedules itself after the batch runs out,
> >it's essentially just dumping all requests at the underlying algorithm as fast
> >as they're coming in.  The underlying algorithm doesn't have need throttling
> >anyway because it'll do the work when the queue is full synchronously.
> >
> >So why not just get rid of mcryptd completely and expose the underlying
> >algorithm as a proper async skcipher/hash?
> 
> Hi Herbert,
> 
> Most part of the cryptd.c and mcryptd.c are similar, except the logic used to flush out partially completed jobs
> in the case of multibuffer algorithms.
> 
> I think I will try to merge the cryptd and mcryptd adding necessary quirks for multibuffer where needed.

I think you didn't quite get my point.  From what I'm seeing you
don't need either cryptd or mcryptd.  You just need to expose the
underlying mb algorithm directly.

So I'm not sure what we would gain from merging cryptd and mcryptd.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt