[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11243.1431351927@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 14:45:27 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
jwboyer@...hat.com, richard@....at, steved@...hat.com,
qat-linux@...el.com, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
james.l.morris@...cle.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] crypto: add PKE API
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > + * @capabilities:
> > + * Specifies what operations are provided by the algorithm
> > + * implementation.
>
> Don't do this. It's a nightmare for the user to have to deal with
> multiple implementations with differing capabilities.
>
> Make the implementor provide backups/fallbacks.
What if the fallback doesn't exist? For instance, a H/W contained key is
specifically limited to, say, just sign/verify and the not permitted to be
used for encrypt/decrypt. How do you provide a fallback given you can't get
at the key?
David
--
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