linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 00/33] crypto: rockchip: permit to pass self-tests

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: <YrBVO+2TWufDOrtH@donbot>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 12:08:43 +0100
From:   John Keeping <john@...anate.com>
To:     LABBE Corentin <clabbe@...libre.com>
Cc:     heiko@...ech.de, ardb@...nel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/33] crypto: rockchip: permit to pass self-tests

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 01:23:04PM +0200, LABBE Corentin wrote:
> Le Sun, May 08, 2022 at 06:59:24PM +0000, Corentin Labbe a écrit :
> > The rockchip crypto driver is broken and do not pass self-tests.
> > This serie's goal is to permit to become usable and pass self-tests.
> > 
> > This whole serie is tested on a rk3328-rock64, rk3288-miqi and
> > rk3399-khadas-edge-v with selftests (with CONFIG_CRYPTO_MANAGER_EXTRA_TESTS=y)
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> 
> This is a gentle ping since this serie has now, no comment to address.

I've just replied to patch 14 with a comment, but other than that I
agree that patches 1-24 look good.  It would be good to get these merged
soon as crypto acceleration on Rockchip hardware has been totally broken
for several releases now.

Patches 1-13 and 15-24 are:

	Reviewed-by: John Keeping <john@...anate.com>

I'm less sure about patches 25-33 as I don't really know much about the
crypto API, but it seems strange that dispatching requests to two
(nearly) identical accelerators should need so much special handling in
the driver and that there isn't some higher level management for this.