On 07/15/2015 08:09 AM, Herbert Xu wrote: >> This is even more complicated because the user can first allocate request >> > and then call setkey causing fallback. I'm now thinking about adding the >> > limitation to rsa generic or I can still use rsa-generic which I know that >> > its ctx is smaller than mine. What do you think? > This would preclude any future assembly implementations from being > used. Besides this is how we implement fallbacks everywhere else > in the crypto API so I don't see why this one should be different. Are you ok if I just add the same constrains to rsa-generic? > >> The rsa_parse_key helper in the rsa generic that parses the key in BER format >> > produces the MPIs.I didn't want to add yet another BER parser here. Should I? > I don't see why not. Certainly beats having to go in and out of > MPIs. Ok will do that. Thanks, T -- 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
