On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 10:29 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Pavel Roskin | 2010-04-07 02:19:55 [-0400]:
>
> >On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 19:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> >> +module_init(arc4_init);
> >> +module_exit(arc4_exit);
> >
> >I'm feelings uneasy about using the sa
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 02:29:53AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Can we avoid those special cases? If the goal is "to make arc4
> compliant with the crypto API", this looks like a step in a wrong
> direction.
>
> The same applies to many other changes in the series.
>
> I do realize that the or
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:23:00AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> So arc4_setup_iv() should do what the internal arc4_ivsetup() does and
> we change void to int and check the keysize in there right? The problem
> here is that we are bounded to *this* implementation of the algorithm
> a
* Pavel Roskin | 2010-04-07 02:19:55 [-0400]:
>On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 19:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
>> +module_init(arc4_init);
>> +module_exit(arc4_exit);
>
>I'm feelings uneasy about using the same module init/exit functions
>names in arc4blk.c and arc4cip.c.
>
>Even though it d
* Herbert Xu | 2010-04-07 08:31:09 [+0800]:
>On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:30:02PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>
>> Good point. All arc4 users don't care about return value of setkey so I
>> think that I just change void to int add the check for the valid key
>> length.
>
>Actually, how
