Re: [PATCH] cit_encrypt_iv/cit_decrypt_iv for ECB mode

2006-08-21 Thread Solar Designer
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:58:30AM +1000, Herbert Xu 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 sup

Re: [PATCH] cit_encrypt_iv/cit_decrypt_iv for ECB mode

2006-08-20 Thread Herbert Xu
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

Re: [PATCH] cit_encrypt_iv/cit_decrypt_iv for ECB mode

2006-08-20 Thread Solar Designer
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

Re: [PATCH] cit_encrypt_iv/cit_decrypt_iv for ECB mode

2006-08-20 Thread Willy Tarreau
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

Re: [PATCH] cit_encrypt_iv/cit_decrypt_iv for ECB mode

2006-08-20 Thread Solar Designer
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

Re: [PATCH] cit_encrypt_iv/cit_decrypt_iv for ECB mode

2006-08-20 Thread Herbert Xu
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