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]
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:14:16 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>, "Lukas Wunner"
 <lukas@...ner.de>, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
 <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <saulo.alessandre@....jus.br>,
 <bbhushan2@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/13] Add support for NIST P521 to ecdsa

On Tue Mar 19, 2024 at 8:55 PM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 3/19/24 14:22, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue Mar 19, 2024 at 12:42 AM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/18/24 14:48, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 02:36:05PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >>>> This series adds support for the NIST P521 curve to the ecdsa module
> >>>> to enable signature verification with it.
> >>>
> >>> v6 of this series is still
> >>>
> >>> Tested-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> > 
> > This has been discussed before in LKML but generally tested-by for
> > series does not have semantical meaning.
> > 
> > Please apply only for patches that were tested.
>
> Ok, I will remove the Tested-by tag.
>
> However, patch 4/13, that only changes a comment, can also be tested in 
> so far as to check whether the code is correct as-is for the tests that 
> 'I' ran and no further modifications are needed for NIST P521. In this 
> case it would mean that a single subtraction of 'n' from res.x seems 
> sufficient and existing code is good as described by the modified comment.

So, since all patches are required to test anything at all, I think that
putting tested-by to 13/13 would be the most appropriate, right?

I without enabling this x509 parser, there is nothing to test, I'd
presume.

It doesn't have to be more complicated than this.

BR, Jarkko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ