| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2151453.hYZ6xmSv8n@tauon> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:54:44 +0100 From: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, 'LKML' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: aesni: add setkey for driver-gcm-aes-aesni Am Dienstag, 20. Januar 2015, 14:37:05 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, >On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:35:41AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: >> This in turn would then turn the __driver implementation into a full >> GCM implementation. That would mean that we should rename it from >> __driver into gcm(aes) / gcm-aesni. > >No you shouldn't because it'll fail in interrupt context where >you cannot use those special instructions. How would the fail manifest itself? If algif_aead would be present, user space could use the __driver implementation regardless of a setkey or authsize callback by simply calling encrypt/decrypt. Would the error be limited to that caller only? > >The whole point of this setup is to use accelerated instructions >where possible, and otherwise fall back to a separate thread >where we can do so safely. Thanks for clarification. > >Cheers, Ciao Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists