On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 8:12 AM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 17:02, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:24 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 06:44, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Actually, this can be addressed by
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 17:02, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:24 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 06:44, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > Actually, this can be addressed by retaining the module dependencies
> > > > as before, but permitting the a
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:24 PM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 06:44, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, this can be addressed by retaining the module dependencies
> > > as before, but permitting the arch module to be omitted at load time.
> >
> > I think that, to avoid
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 06:44, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 2019, at 12:24 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:56, Ard Biesheuvel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:53, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 6:52
> On Oct 5, 2019, at 12:24 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:56, Ard Biesheuvel
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:53, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Oct 4, 2019, at 6:52 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:42, Ja
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:56, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:53, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 4, 2019, at 6:52 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:42, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:43:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:55, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:53 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I think it might be better to allow two different modules to export the
> > same symbol but only allow one of them to be loaded. Or use static calls.
>
> Static calls perform well
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:53, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 2019, at 6:52 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:42, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:43:29AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Ard B
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:53 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think it might be better to allow two different modules to export the same
> symbol but only allow one of them to be loaded. Or use static calls.
Static calls perform well and are well understood. This would be my preference.
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 6:52 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:42, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:43:29AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Ard Biesheuvel
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
In the future, I would
> On Oct 4, 2019, at 6:42 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:43:29AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Ard Biesheuvel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> In the future, I would like to extend these interfaces to use static calls,
>>> so that
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 4:17 PM Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This is a followup to RFC 'crypto: wireguard with crypto API library
> interface'
> [0]. Since no objections were raised to my approach, I've proceeded to fix up
> some minor issues, and incorporate [most of] the missing MIPS code.
Could you
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 15:42, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:43:29AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Ard Biesheuvel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > >
> > > In the future, I would like to extend these interfaces to use static
> > > calls,
> > >
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:43:29AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > In the future, I would like to extend these interfaces to use static calls,
> > so that the accelerated implementations can be [un]plugged at runtime. For
> > the
Hi Ard,
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This is a followup to RFC 'crypto: wireguard with crypto API library
> interface'
> [0]. Since no objections were raised to my approach, I've proceeded to fix up
> some minor issues, and incorporate [most of] the missing MI
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 16:17, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
...
>
> In the future, I would like to extend these interfaces to use static calls,
> so that the accelerated implementations can be [un]plugged at runtime. For
> the time being, we rely on weak aliases and conditional exports so that the
> user
This is a followup to RFC 'crypto: wireguard with crypto API library interface'
[0]. Since no objections were raised to my approach, I've proceeded to fix up
some minor issues, and incorporate [most of] the missing MIPS code.
Changes since RFC/v1:
- dropped the WireGuard patch itself, and the foll
17 matches
Mail list logo
