I don't think there's any taboo or a strong opposition against
the patch. It's just that Andy hasn't followed up, I sort of
given up and moved to other projects and the whole thing has
gone forgotten.
Ok. I hope after my re-merge and testing we can get it integrated
this time.
BTW, my memory is vague here, is this Padlock block only able to do
one-shot hashing?
Yes, in all current CPU's (up to the C7), it is.
There's a beatiful workaround by Michal and Andy which they have
implemented in phe_sum by making the process page fault every time
they need to copy in a new buffer (since the PHE is context-switch
safe).
I'd call it a "clever hack" rather than a "beautiful workaround".
IMO playing with SEGV handlers inside a library like libcrypto is
begging to be bitten by unintended consequences.
But should it prevent us from trying? I mean if we will be bitten, we'll
then actually know, which is better than speculating about it:-) But
what's worst that can happen? Another signal delivered asynchronously
and handler causing SEGV? One can mask all maskable signals upon
sigaction(SIGSEGV)... A.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
