On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 09:24:32AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> Okay. So so are we talking about something like that below then? This is
Pretty much.
> untested and I break other users bexcept lib80211_crypt_tkip.
For the sake of compatibility please do this as a 3-step dance.
F
* Herbert Xu | 2010-02-23 08:32:39 [+0800]:
>If you can find a way that allows arc4 to be used by multiple
>threads at the same time while storing less than 258 bytes in
>each thread, please let me know :)
:)
>No, what you could do is structure the IV differently based on the
>flag:
>
>struct arc
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:08:35PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Herbert Xu | 2010-02-22 08:52:17 [+0800]:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:45:47AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >>
> >> How about this? You extend the IV by one more byte, and use that
> >> byte as a boolean flag to indic
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 02:40:49PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> > So what we could do is simply add a new blkcipher arc4, alongside
> > the existing cipher arc4. Then we can convert the existing users
> > across, and finally remove the old arc4.
>
> arc4 can't be used as a block cipher --- s
* Herbert Xu | 2010-02-22 08:52:17 [+0800]:
>On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:45:47AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>
>> How about this? You extend the IV by one more byte, and use that
>> byte as a boolean flag to indicate whether the IV is valid. All
So I trick the crypto api to allocate more bytes than
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 09:42:28AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> > -static void arc4_crypt(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, u8 *out, const u8 *in)
> > +static void arc4_ivsetup(struct arc4_ctx *ctx, u8 *iv)
> > {
> > - struct arc4_ctx *ctx = cry
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 08:45:47AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> How about this? You extend the IV by one more byte, and use that
> byte as a boolean flag to indicate whether the IV is valid. All
> users that cannot supply their own IVs can then set the IV to zero.
>
> When you see the zero flag
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 09:01:40PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> I also destroy the user supplied IV. You don't care about that? :)
> So I have to know that someone called setkey() on this ctx but I can't
> leave hints.
How about this? You extend the IV by one more byte, and use that
* Herbert Xu | 2010-02-16 20:51:25 [+0800]:
>On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 09:42:28AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>
>> -static void arc4_crypt(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, u8 *out, const u8 *in)
>> +static void arc4_ivsetup(struct arc4_ctx *ctx, u8 *iv)
>> {
>> -struct arc4_ctx *ctx = crypt
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 09:42:28AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> -static void arc4_crypt(struct crypto_tfm *tfm, u8 *out, const u8 *in)
> +static void arc4_ivsetup(struct arc4_ctx *ctx, u8 *iv)
> {
> - struct arc4_ctx *ctx = crypto_tfm_ctx(tfm);
> + if (unlikely(!ctx->new_key
* Herbert Xu | 2010-02-15 08:10:08 [+0800]:
>How about we just remove it? It's not on a hot path anyway.
Sure.
>I can do this when integrating the patch so you don't have to
>resend.
Okay, thanks.
>Thanks,
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
t
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 09:42:54PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2010-02-12 09:42:28 [+0100]:
>
> >+static void arc4_ivsetup(struct arc4_ctx *ctx, u8 *iv)
> > {
> >-struct arc4_ctx *ctx = crypto_tfm_ctx(tfm);
> >+if (unlikely(!ctx->new_key))
>
> T
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2010-02-12 09:42:28 [+0100]:
>+static void arc4_ivsetup(struct arc4_ctx *ctx, u8 *iv)
> {
>- struct arc4_ctx *ctx = crypto_tfm_ctx(tfm);
>+ if (unlikely(!ctx->new_key))
That should be likely(). Do you want me resend the whole thing? Haven't
noticed anything
* Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger | 2010-02-12 10:34:27 [+0100]:
>Hi,
Hi,
>Sebastian Andrzej Siewior schrieb:
>> The name is still ecb(aes) but since this is provided by the blkcipher
>> itself,
>Just to avoid any confusion you meant ecb(arc4) not ecb(aes) here right?
Yes, I do. Not sure how I got aes i
Hi,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior schrieb:
> the state has been moved from ctx into iv. That way encrypt()/decrypt() can
> deliver the same result for a given IV. This patch makes the cipher work with
> dm-crypt not that it is a good thing. However, the performance may have
> improved :)
> The name is
the state has been moved from ctx into iv. That way encrypt()/decrypt() can
deliver the same result for a given IV. This patch makes the cipher work with
dm-crypt not that it is a good thing. However, the performance may have
improved :)
The name is still ecb(aes) but since this is provided by the
16 matches
Mail list logo
