[400thecat]

can you please give me a real-life example of an application, on a typical linux laptop or typical linux server, which userspace application would use this CRYPTO_USER_API ? None that I looked at seem to use it: openssl, pgp, sha256sum

[l1k]

As Eric has correctly stated above, we believe iwd (Intel Wireless Daemon), or rather the ell library it relies on (Embedded Linux Library) is the only relatively widespread user space application relying on it.

[XorNot]

Isn't the better argument to ask whether there'd be benefit if all those things did?

A lack of adoption isn't apriori a good argument against an interface, and serious bugs can happen anywhere.

My personal opinion for a while has been that crypto operations should be in the kernel so we can end the madness that is every application shipping it's own crypto and trust system which has only gotten worse since containers were invented.

[acdha]

> My personal opinion for a while has been that crypto operations should be in the kernel so we can end the madness that is every application shipping it's own crypto and trust system which has only gotten worse since containers were invented.

There’s a valid argument here but I think that’d devolve into the DNSSec trap without both a very well-designed API and a stable way to ship updates for older kernels. If people can’t get good user experience or have to force kernel upgrades to improve security, most applications will avoid it. Things like Chrome shipping their own crypto mean that they can very quickly ship things like PQC without waiting years or having to deal with issues like kernel n+1 having unrelated driver or performance issues which force things into a security vs. functionality fight.

[XorNot]

Which does sort of loop around to the issue of Linux not having a stable ABI as a feature I suppose which would be one way to implement it with long term compatibility on kernel modules.

But the Chrome example also highlights the problem: Chrome might ship it, but vanishingly little software is ever going to upgrade and we've got an explosion of statically linked languages now.

[MarsIronPI]

If Linux does that, I really hope it can be done in a standardized way that doesn't make porting to *BSD more difficult than it already might be. Standards are a good thing.

[bawolff]

> A lack of adoption isn't apriori a good argument against an interface

I mean it kind of is (perhaps not a priori, but why is that relavent?). If something is not being used, its not meeting needs, so its just increasing attack surfaces without benefit.