On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 08:14:51AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > 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? Yes that would work. Of course if any future hardware implementation wanted to support other key sizes we'd have to add a fallback to qat. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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
