Am Montag, 7. September 2015, 07:11:24 schrieb Tadeusz Struk: Hi Tadeusz, >On 09/06/2015 01:34 AM, Stephan Mueller wrote: >>> +static int pkcs1pad_setkey(struct crypto_akcipher *tfm, const void *key, >>> >>> > + unsigned int keylen) >> >> Albeit I have nothing to say against the code, but shouldn't we first get >> the split of the setkey function implemented? The conversion work will >> increase more and more we merge code that uses that API that was decided >> to be revamped. >> >> Tadeusz, what do you think? > >It would make it easier for me if this could wait until the split is done. Sure, I will wait with posting of my new version of AF_ALG until that dust settled. > >>> + akcipher_request_set_crypt(req, NULL, NULL, 0, 0); >>> >>> > + if (crypto_akcipher_encrypt(req) != -EOVERFLOW) >>> > + err = -EINVAL; >> >> I had a chat with Tadesusz already on this code which I need for the >> algif_akcipher code too (and there I need this check more often as user >> space may simply change the key under my feet). I feel that it is a waste >> of CPU cycles to set up a fake encryption request just to get the data >> length which is based on the used key. >> >> The value we obtain here is simply a check of the key length. Thus, I would >> think that we should have a separate akcipher API call for this instead of >> requiring the caller to allocate a fake request context. >> >> Tadeusz, are you working on that code or shall I have a look? > >I wasn't planning to add this, but yes, I think it's a good idea. >I'll add it. Thanks a lot. I would think that the API call really is just a one-liner returning the size of the key. 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
