Messages in this thread | | | From | Stephan Mueller <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] crypto: aesni: add setkey for driver-gcm-aes-aesni | Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:54:44 +0100 |
| |
Am Dienstag, 20. Januar 2015, 14:37:05 schrieb Herbert Xu:
Hi Herbert,
>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:35:41AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: >> This in turn would then turn the __driver implementation into a full >> GCM implementation. That would mean that we should rename it from >> __driver into gcm(aes) / gcm-aesni. > >No you shouldn't because it'll fail in interrupt context where >you cannot use those special instructions.
How would the fail manifest itself? If algif_aead would be present, user space could use the __driver implementation regardless of a setkey or authsize callback by simply calling encrypt/decrypt. Would the error be limited to that caller only? > >The whole point of this setup is to use accelerated instructions >where possible, and otherwise fall back to a separate thread >where we can do so safely.
Thanks for clarification. > >Cheers,
Ciao Stephan
| |