linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce akcipher service for virtio-crypto

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: <20220405012015-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 01:20:41 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@...edance.com>, arei.gonglei@...wei.com,
        jasowang@...hat.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, helei.sig11@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introduce akcipher service for virtio-crypto

On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 05:39:24PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:42:30AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> >> Hi, Michael & Lei
> >> 
> >> The full patchset has been reviewed by Gonglei, thanks to Gonglei.
> >> Should I modify the virtio crypto specification(use "__le32 akcipher_algo;"
> >> instead of "__le32 reserve;" only, see v1->v2 change), and start a new issue
> >> for a revoting procedure?
> >
> > You can but not it probably will be deferred to 1.3. OK with you?
> >
> >> Also cc Cornelia Huck.
> 
> [Apologies, I'm horribly behind on my email backlog, and on virtio
> things in general :(]
> 
> The akcipher update had been deferred for 1.2, so I think it will be 1.3
> material. However, I just noticed while browsing the fine lwn.net merge
> window summary that this seems to have been merged already. That
> situation is less than ideal, although I don't expect any really bad
> problems, given that there had not been any negative feedback for the
> spec proposal that I remember.

Let's open a 1.3 branch? What do you think?

-- 
MST