Am Dienstag, 20. Januar 2015, 14:37:05 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, >On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:35:41AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: >> This in turn would then turn the __driver implementation into a full >> GCM implementation. That would mean that we should rename it from >> __driver into gcm(aes) / gcm-aesni. > >No you shouldn't because it'll fail in interrupt context where >you cannot use those special instructions. How would the fail manifest itself? If algif_aead would be present, user space could use the __driver implementation regardless of a setkey or authsize callback by simply calling encrypt/decrypt. Would the error be limited to that caller only? > >The whole point of this setup is to use accelerated instructions >where possible, and otherwise fall back to a separate thread >where we can do so safely. Thanks for clarification. > >Cheers, Ciao Stephan -- 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
