Re: [PATCH 0/4] crypto: CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME is too low

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:58:32PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Herbert Xu > Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:15:09 +0800 > > > As the final patch depends on all three it would be easiest if > > we pushed the xfrm patch through the crypto tree. Steffen/David? > > No

Re: [PATCH 0/4] crypto: CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME is too low

From: Herbert Xu Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:15:09 +0800 > As the final patch depends on all three it would be easiest if > we pushed the xfrm patch through the crypto tree. Steffen/David? No objections from me for this going through the crypto tree.

Re: [PATCH 0/4] crypto: CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME is too low

Hi! On 06/04/17 10:15, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:16:29PM +0100, Alexander Sverdlin wrote: >> This is a regression caused by 856e3f4092 >> ("crypto: seqiv - Add support for new AEAD interface") >> >> As I've said above, I can offer one of the two solutions, which patch should

[PATCH 0/4] crypto: CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME is too low

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:16:29PM +0100, Alexander Sverdlin wrote: > > This is a regression caused by 856e3f4092 > ("crypto: seqiv - Add support for new AEAD interface") > > As I've said above, I can offer one of the two solutions, which patch should > I send? > Or do you see any better

Re: CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME is too low

Hello! On 10/03/17 12:55, Alexander Sverdlin wrote: > Hello crypto maintainers! > > We've found and example of the ipsec algorithm combination, which doesn't fit > into CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME long buffers: > > ip x s add src 1.1.1.1 dst 1.1.1.2 proto esp spi 0 mode tunnel enc des3_ede > 0x0 auth

CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME is too low

Hello crypto maintainers! We've found and example of the ipsec algorithm combination, which doesn't fit into CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME long buffers: ip x s add src 1.1.1.1 dst 1.1.1.2 proto esp spi 0 mode tunnel enc des3_ede 0x0 auth sha256 0x0 flag esn replay-window 256 produces