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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <87ee2cexp5.fsf@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:33:42 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...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 Tue, Apr 05 2022, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:

> 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?

Yes, that's probably best, before things start piling up.