linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] crypto: mxs-dcp: Add support for hardware provided keys

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: <CAFLxGvyFy-BWjLF5z2=TaQ+MPEh+Djj3-PSAMArMoquekLWgBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:12:20 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     keyrings@...r.kernel.org, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
        David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] crypto: mxs-dcp: Add support for hardware provided keys

Herbert,

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:29 PM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > This patch was judged as not applicable in your patchwork.
> > Is something missing? How can we proceed?
>
> I'm happy to take this patch.  I marked it as not applicable
> mainly because the other two patches didn't have acks and I'm
> not sure if they were meant for the crypto tree or not.

Maybe we have a chicken/egg situation and integrity folks wait for you. ;-)

> Would you like me to take just the first patch?

IMHO all three patches should go through the integrity tree.
Given that you're fine with the first patch, can you please ack it?

-- 
Thanks,
//richard