Re: [RFC PATCH 01/21] crypto: scomp - Revert "add support for deflate rfc1950 (zlib)"

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 00:54, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 03:32:39PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 02:58:27PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > This reverts commit a368f43d6e3a001e684e9191a27df384fbff12f5.
> > >
> > > "zlib-deflate" was introduced 6 years ago, but it does not have any
> > > users. So let's remove the generic implementation and the test vectors,
> > > but retain the "zlib-deflate" entry in the testmgr code to avoid
> > > introducing warning messages on systems that implement zlib-deflate in
> > > hardware.
> > >
> > > Note that RFC 1950 which forms the basis of this algorithm dates back to
> > > 1996, and predates RFC 1951, on which the existing IPcomp is based and
> > > which we have supported in the kernel since 2003. So it seems rather
> > > unlikely that we will ever grow the need to support zlib-deflate.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  crypto/deflate.c | 61 +++++-----------
> > >  crypto/testmgr.c |  8 +--
> > >  crypto/testmgr.h | 75 --------------------
> > >  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 126 deletions(-)
> >
> > So if this is really unused, it's probably fair to remove it on that basis.
> > However, it's not correct to claim that DEFLATE is obsoleted by zlib (the data
> > format).  zlib is just DEFLATE plus a checksum, as is gzip.
> >
> > Many users of zlib or gzip use an external checksum and therefore would be
> > better served by DEFLATE, avoiding a redundant builtin checksum.  Typically,
> > people have chosen zlib or gzip simply because their compression library
> > defaulted to it, they didn't understand the difference, and they overlooked that
> > they're paying the price for a redundant builtin checksum.
> >
> > An example of someone doing it right is EROFS, which is working on adding
> > DEFLATE support (not zlib or gzip!):
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230713001441.30462-1-hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Of course, they are using the library API instead of the clumsy crypto API.
> >
>
> Ah, I misread this patch, sorry.  It's actually removing support for zlib (the
> data format) from the scomp API, leaving just DEFLATE.  That's fine too; again,
> it ultimately just depends on what is actually being used via the scomp API.
> But similarly you can't really claim that zlib is obsoleted by DEFLATE just
> because of the RFC dates.  As I mentioned, many people do use zlib (the data
> format), often just because it's the default of zlib (the library) and they
> didn't know any better.  For example, btrfs compression supports zlib.
>

I am not suggesting either is obsolete. I am merely pointing out that
zlib-deflate is as old as plain deflate, and so we could have
implemented both at the same time when IPcomp support was added, but
we never bothered.