On Saturday 05 November 2005 11:14, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:22:30PM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > > > This is what I ended up integrating. > > > > Nice, I like this more than my version. > > I'm afraid that I've overlooked an important issue: alignment. > > In places we've changed code that reads/writes byte-by-byte into 64-bit > loads/stores. This can only work on all architectures if the data is > suitably aligned. > > In fact, the existing code also assumes alignment to albeit they only > require 32-bit alignment at most. > > Fortunately we do have infrasture to handle this in the form of > cra_alignmask. > > However, even with that we don't want to require 64-bit alignment unless > absolutely necessary because it will mean that we have to copy things > around if they aren't aligned. For users such as IPsec 64-bit alignment > is often not satisfied for IPv4 input. > > So we need to do the following things: > > 1) Make sure all crypto users only pass arguments to setkey that are > 32-bit aligned. > > 2) For all crypto drivers, break up any 64-bit loads of input/key or > 64-bit stores of output into two 32-bit operations. > > 3) Set cra_alignmask to 3 for all crypto drivers using 32-bit > loads/stores.
No promises, but I will try to do it. Just send me a tarball of your current crypto/* kernel files. > I'd appreciate it if one of you guys could take care of one or more of > these steps for me. P.S. What happened to the whirlpool bug report? -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
