On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:04:15 +1000
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm2/drivers/crypto/Kconfig.old 2006-08-20
> > 17:28:46.0 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm2/drivers/crypto/Kconfig 2006-08-20
> > 17:44:56.0 +0200
> > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> > conf
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:09:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> BTW: The Kconfig+Makefile parts for padlock-sha seem to be missing.
Thanks Adrian.
> --- linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm2/drivers/crypto/Kconfig.old 2006-08-20
> 17:28:46.0 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm2/drivers/crypto/Kconfig
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:49:08PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
>
> Can we maybe define working but IV-ignoring functions for ECB (like I
> did), but use memory-clearing nocrypt*() for CFB and CTR (as long as
> these are not supported)? Of course, all of these will return -ENOSYS.
In cryptodev-2
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:13:46PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:49:08PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > Can we maybe define working but IV-ignoring functions for ECB (like I
> > did), but use memory-clearing nocrypt*() for CFB and CTR (as long as
> > these are not suppo
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:49:08PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:04:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 04:23:46AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > The attached patch actually defines ecb_encrypt_iv() and
> > > ecb_decrypt_iv() functions that p
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:00:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>...
> Changes since 2.6.18-rc4-mm1:
>...
> git-cryptodev.patch
>
> git trees
>...
This patch fixes the following compile error:
<-- snip -->
LD .tmp_vmlinux1
drivers/built-in.o: In function `cbc_aes_decrypt':
padlock-aes
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:04:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 04:23:46AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > The attached patch actually defines ecb_encrypt_iv() and
> > ecb_decrypt_iv() functions that perform ECB encryption/decryption
> > ignoring the IV, yet return -ENOSYS
Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's what I thought after reading the code too. BTW, 2.6 does not
> initialize the pointers either.
This has been changed in the cryptodev-2.6 tree:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=310d6a0c14eda