Re: [Qemu-devel] Question about add AF_ALG backend for virtio-crypto

[Gonglei (Arei)]

Hi Daniel,

>
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:43:10PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:04:55PM +0800, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> > > > > I'm one of Gonglei's virtio-crypto project members, and we plan to 
> > > > > add a
> > > AF_ALG
> > > > > backend for virtio-crypto(there's only builtin-backend currently).
> > > > >
> > > > > I found that Catalin, Paolo and Stefan had discussed about this in 
> > > > > 2015
> > > > > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg115457.html), but it seems that
> > > Catalin
> > > > > didn't do it, so I'm confuse about wether it is need to add a AF_ALG
> > > backend.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any suggestion? Thanks :)
> > > >
> > > > I have no objections to an AF_ALG backend in QEMU.
> > >
> > > Rather than do another backend for virtio-crypto, IMHO, we should have
> > > an AF_ALG impl of the crypto/ APIs. That way any potential performance
> > > benefits will enhance our LUKS encryption code too.
> > >
> > According to the currently schemas of crypto/ APIs, we can't choose the
> > specific backend dynamically. This is a limitation for virtio-crypto
> > device I think.
> 
> Do we really need to be able to choose the backend explicitly. If the AF_ALG
> backend is faster, why would you simply not use that automatically if it is
> available.

Can we realize the purpose based on the crypto/ APIs? IIUC the crypto
subsystem chooses a backend during the building according to the specific 
priority,
nettle > gcrypt > cipher-builtin.

If we add an AF_ALG implementation for crypto subsystem, shall we set it
as the highest priority? If so, other backends won't be used since AF_ALG
is always available. If not, how can we use AF_ALG backend for crypto/ API?

Please correct me if I'm missing something. 

> I'm not seeing an obvious need for dynamically choosing between
> backends.
> 

Thanks,
-Gonglei