On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:06:32AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
>
> + ctx->key_sz = mpi_get_size(pkey->n);
> + if (!qat_rsa_enc_fn_id(ctx->key_sz)) {
> + /* invalid key size provided */
> + rsa_free_key(pkey);
> + ctx->key_sz = 0;
> + return -E
On 13.07.2015 [17:05:36 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 04.07.2015 [15:24:53 +0800], Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:41:19PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > Currently, when the nx-842-pseries driver loads, the following message
> > > is emitted:
> > >
> > > alg: No
On 04.07.2015 [15:24:53 +0800], Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:41:19PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Currently, when the nx-842-pseries driver loads, the following message
> > is emitted:
> >
> > alg: No test for 842 (842-nx)
> >
> > It seems like the simplest way to fix t
vmx-crypto driver make use of some VSX instructions which are
only available if VSX is enabled. Running in cases where VSX
are not enabled vmx-crypto fails in a VSX exception.
In order to fix this enable_kernel_vsx() was added to turn on
VSX instructions for vmx-crypto.
Signed-off-by: Leonidas S.
enable_kernel_vsx() function was commented since anything was using
it. However, vmx-crypto driver uses VSX instructions which are
only available if VSX is enable. Otherwise it rises an exception oops.
This patch uncomment enable_kernel_vsx() routine and makes it available.
Signed-off-by: Leonida
enable_kernel_vsx() was commented since anything was using
it. It changes with vmx_crypto driver that call VSX instructions
and need kernel_vsx enabled in order to do it properly. Without
a way to enable VSX instruction vmx_crypto fails into an exception.
These patches uncomment enable_kernel_vsx(
Am Montag, 13. Juli 2015, 17:13:49 schrieb Herbert Xu:
Hi Herbert,
>On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:09:34AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>> That code now works with rfc4106(gcm(aes)). But using that code now fails
>> with the "regular" GCM implementation as well as CCM. The regular GCM
>> implementat
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:09:34AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>
> That code now works with rfc4106(gcm(aes)). But using that code now fails
> with
> the "regular" GCM implementation as well as CCM. The regular GCM
> implementation works when not providing the IV as part of the SGL/set_ad. Is
Am Samstag, 11. Juli 2015, 10:39:18 schrieb Herbert Xu:
Hi Herbert,
>Weird. The C version does the very same check:
>
>static int crypto_rfc4106_decrypt(struct aead_request *req)
>{
>if (req->assoclen != 16 && req->assoclen != 20)
>return -EINVAL;
I rechecked my test cod
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:15:52AM +0200, Martin Willi wrote:
>
> > If you're going to use sec you need to use at least 10 in order
> > for it to be meaningful as shorter values often result in bogus
> > numbers.
>
> Ok, I'll use sec=10 in v2. There is no fundamental difference compared
> to sec=
10 matches
Mail list logo
