On Nov 9, 2023, at 15:54, Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 07:44:46AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 10:58:41AM +0800, Jerry Shih wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 2023, at 18:55, Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The Zvknha and Zvknhb are exclusive. It's not the superset relationship. >>> >>> Please check: >>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-crypto/issues/364#issuecomment-1726782096 >> >> You got a response to this on the previous version, but didn't engage >> with it: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c64d9ddb-edbd-4c8f-b56f-1b90d82100b7@xxxxxxxxxxxx/#t Reply for the thread: https://lore.kernel.org/all/c64d9ddb-edbd-4c8f-b56f-1b90d82100b7@xxxxxxxxxxxx/#t > Yes, but for instance, what happens if the user query the zvknha (if it > only needs SHA256) but zvknhb is present. If we don't declare zvknha, > then it will fail but the support would actually be present due to > zvknhb being there. If we needs SHA256 only, then we should check whether we have zvknha `or` zvknhb. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/4d4657cb6ba364dfa60681948b0a30c40bee31ca/crypto/sha/sha_riscv.c#L24 > Ahh, I now see what that happened. Your mailer is broken and puts the > message-id of what you are replying to in the In-Reply-To and Reply-To > headers. The former is correct, the latter is bogus & means you don't even > get delivered the response. I use mac builtin `mail` client. And I think I put the `in-reply-to` address to the `reply to` field. Hope this one works well. Thank you for the thread forwarding. -Jerry
