Am Montag, 13. Juli 2015, 17:13:49 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, >On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:09:34AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: >> That code now works with rfc4106(gcm(aes)). But using that code now fails >> with the "regular" GCM implementation as well as CCM. The regular GCM >> implementation works when not providing the IV as part of the SGL/set_ad. >> Is >> that difference between "regular" AEAD and RFC4106 AEAD intended? > >Yes of course. As RFC4106 specifies that the IV should not be part >of the AD. > >> Apart from the GCM vs RFC4106 invocation, the code seemingly requires to >> provide the IV twice -- once with the buffer/set_ad and once with the >> set_crypt call. Is that intended? Providing the IV twice is visible in the >> testmgr.h patch where .assoc now includes the previous .assoc plus the IV >> data which is also set in .iv. > >Yes it is intended. I played with not requiring req->iv at all >and just getting it from the AD but the code turned out to be more >complicated because you have to jump through hoops to access the IV >which you need to to construct the full 16-byte IV. > >Since the primary user IPsec easily provides us with both I think >that is the better setup. Thank you very much. Now, all cipher permutations testable with CAVS show a clean test run with this patch set. 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
