On 09/11/2023 10:45, Jerry Shih wrote: > 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 Hi Jerry, Sorry for that, I actually thought my mailer was broken and fixed the mail the first time I answered but not the second time... > >> 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 Ok, and if there is already some userspace code that behaves like that, let's go this way and do not treat that as a superset. Thanks, Clément > >> 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
