Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de wrote:
Paper has:
the time delta is partitioned into chunks of 1 bit starting at the
lowest bit The 64 1 bit chunks of the time value are XORed with
each other to form a 1 bit value.
As I read that, you are just taking the parity. Why not use that
Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2013, 09:38:34 schrieb Sandy Harris:
Hi Sandy,
Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de wrote:
If what you are doing is not a parity computation, then you need a
better description so people like me do not misread it.
It is not a parity computation that the folding loop
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Sandy Harris sandyinch...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de wrote:
Can you please help me understand why you think that a whitening
function (cryptographic or not) is needed in the case of the CPU Jitter
RNG, provided that I can show that
Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2013, 16:12:24 schrieb Stephan Mueller:
Hi Sandy,
(PS: I am aware that in case none of the individual bits would contain
one full bit of entropy, the folding operation may --mathematically
spoken-- not deliver one full bit of entropy. However, after speaking
with a
Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2013, 10:14:00 schrieb Sandy Harris:
Hi Sandy,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Sandy Harris sandyinch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de wrote:
Can you please help me understand why you think that a whitening
function (cryptographic or not) is
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de wrote:
Another thing: when you start adding whitening functions, other people
are starting (and did -- thus I added section 4.3 to my documentation)
to complain that you hide your weaknesses behind the whiteners. I simply
Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2013, 11:18:16 schrieb Sandy Harris:
Hi Sandy,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de
wrote:
Another thing: when you start adding whitening functions, other
people
are starting (and did -- thus I added section 4.3 to my
documentation)
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de wrote:
Why not declare some 64-bit constant C with a significant
Which constant would you take? The CRC twist values? The SHA-1 initial
values? Or the first few from SHA-256?
The only essential requirement is that it not be
Add support for Device Tree and use of the DMA DT API to
get the needed channels.
Documentation is added for these DT nodes.
Initial code by: Nicolas Royer and Eukrea.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
---
.../devicetree/bindings/crypto/atmel-crypto.txt| 23
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi
index ca956b6..b2aabff 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi
+++
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi
index 99bd4a6..aca3893 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi
+++
On 18:46 Mon 14 Oct , Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Change the sha/aes/tdes compatibility string to match common
case for the at91sam9g45 family which is to keep the at91 prefix.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi | 6 +++---
1 file changed,
Stephan Mueller smuel...@chronox.de wrote:
[quoting me]
...your code is basically, with 64-bit x:
for( i=0, x = 0 ; i 64; i++, x =rotl(x) )
x |= bit()
Why not declare some 64-bit constant C with a significant
number of bits set and do this:
for( i=0, x = 0 ; i 64; i++, x
---
MDaemon has detected restricted attachments within an email message
---
From : linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
To: nguyen_...@orangefashionvt.com
Subject
14 matches
Mail list logo
