On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:04:49AM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> Herbert,
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 02:14:44PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:48:40AM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > >
> > > If we pass SubjectPublicKeyInfo into set_pub_key itself (making
> > > set_params not needed) we will break ABI and compatibility with RSA
> > > drivers, because whole SubjectPublicKeyInfo is not expected by the
> >
> > This compatibility does not matter. We can always add translating
> > layers into the crypto API to deal with this. The only ABI that
> > matters is the one to user-space.
>
> It seems that you insist on set_params to be removed and both key and
> params to be passed into set_{pub,priv}_key. This means reworking all
> existing RSA drivers and callers, right? Can you please confirm that
> huge rework to avoid misunderstanding?
>
> I think to pass SubjectPublicKeyInfo into set_*_key would be overkill,
> because TPM drivers may not have it and we would need BER encoder just
> for that.
>
> So, probably, something simple like length, key data, length, params data
> will be enough?
Or maybe we could just add additional argument to set_{pub,priv}_key?
(If you agree to change that ABI anyway).
> Thanks,
