Re: ELIBBAD vs. ENOENT for ciphers not allowed by FIPS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 09:08:46AM -0600, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Being able to distinguish between those reasons doesn't seem to be important,
> whereas being able to distinguish between a self-test failure and an algorithm
> being disabled is important.

ELIBBAD isn't equivalent to a self-test failure at all.  ELIBBAD
means that every implementation of an algorithm that the kernel
could find has failed the self-test.

If one implementation fails the self-test while other implementations
(such as the generic one) of the same algorithm still exist, the
kernel would never return ELIBBAD.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel]     [Gnu Classpath]     [Gnu Crypto]     [DM Crypt]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux