Am Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2017, 20:10:57 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers:

Hi Eric,

> Hi Stephan,
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 04:54:55PM +0200, Stephan Müller wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 23:00:32 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers:
> > 
> > Hi Herbert,
> > 
> > This patch adds a second KDF to the kernel -- the first is found in the
> > keys subsystem.
> > 
> > The next KDF that may come in is in the TLS scope.
> > 
> > Would it make sense to warm up the KDF patches adding generic KDF support
> > to the kernel crypto API that I supplied some time ago? The advantages
> > would be to have one location of KDF implementations and the benefit of
> > the testmgr.
> That may be a good idea.  Looking at the old thread, I share Herbert's
> concern ( about
> there likely not being more than one implementation of each KDF algorithm. 
> So, perhaps some simple helper functions would be more appropriate. 
> However, making the KDFs be covered by self-tests would be very nice.

I agree that it is likely that specific KDF implementations may only be used 
once. But still, I would recommend to maintain those implementation under the 
crypto API umbrella, as KDFs are cryptographic operations.

> Also, it seems your patch
> ( doesn't allow a
> salt to be passed in.  In order to fully support HKDF, crypto_rng_reset()
> (which as I understand would be the way to invoke the "extract" step) would
> somehow need to accept both the input keying material and salt, both of
> which are arbitrary length binary.

I concur with you. I have implemented the HKDF in my libkcapi as well and saw 
the need for a salt.

Let me work on an update to the KDF patch for the kernel crypto API.


Reply via email to