Re: [PATCH] tcrypt: add self test for des3_ebe cipher operating in cbc mode

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 12:43:46AM +0200, Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger wrote:
> Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 06:09:46PM +0200, Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger wrote:
> >> Neil Horman wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:10:14AM +0200, Adrian-Ken Rueegsegger wrote:
> >>>> Neil Horman wrote:
> [snip]
> >>>> These tests both seem to fail on my machine. Did you verify that the tests pass succesfully?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Adrian
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, of course I did.  I clearly indicated that I did in my commit message
> >>> above.  I just verified on a separate system as well.  You had mentioned that
> >>> some of the standard NIST vectors that you obtained were failing on your system
> >>> as well, is something perhaps misconfigured in your kernel build?  Mind you I
> >>> can't imagine what that would be, and if it were just my vectors that were
> >>> failing for you I could imagine I missed something that would work in my testing
> >>> but fail in yours, but if standard vectors are failing it seems something else
> >>> might be wrong
> >> Sorry, I did not mean to come off so hostile. I merely wanted to find out if I was the only one with failing test results. I will investigate, why this fails on my machine.
> >>
> > I know you didn't.  I apologize as well.  I can't imagine why they would be
> > failing.  I verified them in the tcrypt self tests again, as well as under
> > openssl in userspace, and both passed correctly.  I've still have no idea what
> > causes the failure.  I do recall there being a case in the setkey path that
> > returned an error without setting flags.  I hit that writing my vectors.  I'll
> > see if I can find it again.
> 
> I just did a clean build on a different machine with the current HEAD (ac3f925c2bb1b08a41713394d78098857d3f40a7)
> of the cryptodev-2.6-tree. The two tests fail on that box too. :( I will see if I can spot something suspicious by
> comparing the two configs. Could somebody else run the tests and report back the results?
> 
> Here's a shot in the dark: was there a mixup during the patch submission? Maybe you submitted a different version
> of the patch than intended?
> 
Its possible.  I've got some chores that I need to take care of right now, but
I'll rebuild tomorrow with the patch from my post email and re-verify
Neil

> Adrian