* Herbert Xu | 2007-11-16 10:08:51 [+0800]:
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:10:05PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>>
>> In this case, the s390 has the same bug (they copy the IV back after
>> blkcipher_walk_done()). Howevere it will probably never get triggered
>> because they have an aligment of 0
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 07:56:55PM +0800, Herbert Xu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I'm not sure what user will do, when it request chaining, but driver
> > will set CRYPTO_ALG_CIPHER_NOCHAIN itself and return wrong/old in
> > req->info?
> > For IPsec it is not an issue though, but I can not say th
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 01:38:41PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > Users requiring chaining would then do
> >
> > crypto_alloc_blkcipher("foo", 0, CRYPTO_ALG_CIPHER_NOCHAIN)
>
> Hmm, users who want chaining will set flag _NOCHAIN :)
> I would call it something more informative...
Yes I
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:52:37PM +0800, Herbert Xu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:11:10PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >
> > That's a question - should it copy IV back or not?
> > Currently it is not required by crypto users.
>
> OK I've changed my mind :)
>
> The r
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:52:37PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> So my plan is to add a new flag, CRYPTO_ALG_CIPHER_NOCHAIN that
> you would set on algorithms that cannot be chained. The semantics
> is that everything else remains the same except that on encrypt
> calls, the req->info after complet
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:11:10PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> That's a question - should it copy IV back or not?
> Currently it is not required by crypto users.
OK I've changed my mind :)
The reason is CTR, or rather the CTR as used by IPsec. CTR
itself should be able to chain, in fact o
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:42:24PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> > Actually on second thought why don't we change the interface
> > for ablkcipher so that we allow the IV to be returned by either
> > copying it to req->info or replacing the req->info pointer?
>
> Better copy I think, since ot
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 07:25:30PM +0800, Herbert Xu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:11:10PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >
> > That's a question - should it copy IV back or not?
> > Currently it is not required by crypto users.
>
> Well currently we have exactly one cr
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:11:10PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>
> That's a question - should it copy IV back or not?
> Currently it is not required by crypto users.
Well currently we have exactly one crypto user of ablkcipher
in the tree, and that's tcrypt :)
However, looking at the sync cryp
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:08:51AM +0800, Herbert Xu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > So a general question: Is it a must (requirement by the crypto API) to
> > copy the IV back or not? I guess not if we move completely to async (one
> > day) :)
>
> You must copy it back to allow chaining. Even whe
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:19:13AM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> Not only in hfin. My SPU-AES has the same bug. Do you know someone who
> wants to chain? I can remember that you said once "that this is
> currently the case but we can change this since IPsec brings a new IV
> for ever packet".
>
* Herbert Xu | 2007-11-16 10:08:51 [+0800]:
>You must copy it back to allow chaining. Even when we go async
>someone may wish to chain. So in that sense you've just found a
>bug in the hifn driver :)
Not only in hfin. My SPU-AES has the same bug. Do you know someone who
wants to chain? I can rem
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 10:10:05PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>
> In this case, the s390 has the same bug (they copy the IV back after
> blkcipher_walk_done()). Howevere it will probably never get triggered
> because they have an aligment of 0 (what gets pushed to 3 by the crypto
> API if I re
* Herbert Xu | 2007-11-14 22:22:53 [+0800]:
>Indeed the last call to blkcipher_walk_done will free the IV if
>we had to copy it due to an alignment mismatch. Since geode has
>an alignment of 16 bytes, that's almost a given.
Ach
>You could copy from/to desc->info instead which would solve the
>pr
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:11:32AM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>
> and everything goes back to normal. I checked walk.iv and it doesn't
> change, it is still the same pointer. Do you free the walk.iv in the
> meantime or is there another BUG I don't see? The IV length is 16 bytes.
> Currently
15 matches
Mail list logo
