linux-kernel - Re: enable padlock on x86

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090314115307.GA28235@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc>
Date:	Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:53:07 +0100
From:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@...akpoint.cc>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, mail@...iasvolk.de
Subject: Re: enable padlock on x86_64

* Ingo Molnar | 2009-03-14 12:47:32 [+0100]:

>thanks, looks good. We can apply #1 to -tip just fine - but a 
>drivers/crypto/ change should go via the crypto tree. Can the 
>crypto tree apply #2 without having #1 right away? [i.e. will it 
>still build and boot fine - even though the padlock 
>functionality might not be fully present on 32-bit? ]

Yep, it is fine.
#1 in, #2 not will not result in any difference to what we have now.
#2 in, #1 not will result in "padlock not detected" while loading the
module and -ENODEV.

>Then in 2.6.30 once both the x86 tree and the crypto tree are 
>merged we'll have both changes combined.
>
>Does that sound good?
I'm fine with this, but last word is Herbert's :)

>	Ingo

Sebastian
--
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/