From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7C8C433FE for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 03:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229624AbiKIDwZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2022 22:52:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37064 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229553AbiKIDwY (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2022 22:52:24 -0500 Received: from formenos.hmeau.com (helcar.hmeau.com [216.24.177.18]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 326A2165AE for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 19:52:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from loth.rohan.me.apana.org.au ([192.168.167.2]) by formenos.hmeau.com with smtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Debian)) id 1osc7q-00BoUK-Va; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:52:20 +0800 Received: by loth.rohan.me.apana.org.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:52:19 +0800 Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:52:19 +0800 From: Herbert Xu To: Ben Greear Cc: Ard Biesheuvel , Linux Crypto Mailing List , Eric Biggers Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: aesni - add ccm(aes) algorithm implementation Message-ID: References: <20201210024342.GA26428@gondor.apana.org.au> <20201210111427.GA28014@gondor.apana.org.au> <20201210121627.GB28441@gondor.apana.org.au> <20201215091902.GA21455@gondor.apana.org.au> <062a2258-fad4-2c6f-0054-b0f41786ff85@candelatech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <062a2258-fad4-2c6f-0054-b0f41786ff85@candelatech.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 10:50:48AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > While rebasing my patches onto 6.1-rc4, I noticed my aesni for ccm(aes) patch didn't apply cleanly, > and I found this patch described below is applied now. Does this upstream patch mean that aesni is already > supported upstream now? Or is it specific to whatever xctr is? If so, > any chance the patch is wanted upstream now? AFAICS the xctr patch has nothing to do with what you were trying to achieve with wireless. My objection still stands with regards to wireless, we should patch wireless to use the async crypto interface and not hack around it in the Crypto API. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt