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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062B2C433DF for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C8B2078E for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731918AbgG1RaP (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:30:15 -0400 Received: from helcar.hmeau.com ([216.24.177.18]:56292 "EHLO fornost.hmeau.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731912AbgG1RaP (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:30:15 -0400 Received: from gwarestrin.arnor.me.apana.org.au ([192.168.0.7]) by fornost.hmeau.com with smtp (Exim 4.92 #5 (Debian)) id 1k0TQX-0001qD-PF; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 03:30:10 +1000 Received: by gwarestrin.arnor.me.apana.org.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 03:30:09 +1000 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 03:30:09 +1000 From: Herbert Xu To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Eric Biggers , Stephan Mueller , Linux Crypto Mailing List Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 1/31] crypto: skcipher - Add final chunk size field for chaining Message-ID: <20200728173009.GA3620@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20200728071746.GA22352@gondor.apana.org.au> <20200728171512.GB4053562@gmail.com> <20200728172239.GA3539@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 08:26:38PM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > So how does one allocate a tfm that supports chaining if their use > case requires it? Having different implementations of the same algo > where one does support it while the other one doesn't means we will > need some flag to request this at alloc time. Yes we could add a flag for it. However, for the two users that I'm looking at right now (algif_skcipher and sunrpc) this is not required. For algif_skcipher it'll simply fall back to the current behaviour if chaining is not supported, while sunrpc would only use chaining with cts where it is always supported. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt