Sebastian Siewior schrieb: > * Herbert Xu | 2008-03-05 19:52:03 [+0800]: > >> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:46:52PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote: >>> I'm not sure if we are allowed to modify the IV or if it should >>> remain untouched. If it is possible to modify it, I could encrypt it >>> inplace and save two memcpy(). >>> I will check this tonight. >> I just had a quick look and it seems that you should be able to >> store the result in the IV. > Okey, > >> However this won't work for LRW since we need the IV to increment >> it. But then again LRW seems to be fine as it is since its >> arguments are already aligned by the blkcipher walker. > I just browsed LRW and it seems that it does not encrypt the IV at all. > > Stefan: Didn't you report that both, XTS and LRW are broken on your > padlock? If so, could you please post the backtrace? I think it crashed one time, but I haven't really tried using LRW since XTS is said to provide better security. Now I'm not able to reproduce the crash, it works with vanilla 2.6.25-rc4. I have other problems in 2.6.25-rc[1-3], I get segfaults every here and then. I tried compiling gcc several time, 90% of the time it crashed somewhere. I have the feeling it segfaults faster when I do the compile in a tmpfs-mounted directory. 2.6.24 works fine, I haven't tested 2.6.25-rc4. I have to check my RAM, if it's good I will report this to LKML. I think the LRW-crash I reported could be related to this. Thanks Stefan PS: I'm away from Thursday 12:00 UTC till Tuesday. > >> Thanks, > > Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
