From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Mueller Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] crypto: aead - Phase oute seqniv Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:19:53 +0200 Message-ID: <2012703.RafZhkfDBX@tauon.atsec.com> References: <20150708231330.GA28797@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Linux Crypto Mailing List To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mail.eperm.de ([89.247.134.16]:47938 "EHLO mail.eperm.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751341AbbGIKUC (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:20:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150708231330.GA28797@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Donnerstag, 9. Juli 2015, 07:13:30 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, >Hi: > >This series attempts to phase out the recently introduced seqniv >generator. The reason is that the logic of seqniv should not be >implemented at the IV generator layer. Having the IV skipping >logic in seqniv means that you cannot perform encryption without >doing IV generation. > >In fact moving the IV skipping logic out of seqniv and into the >underlying rfcXXXX (e.g., rfc4106) template allows optimisations >to be made as the underlying code can often skip the IV in a more >efficient manner. > >Unfortunately we've already begun the conversion process so this >series adds a new flag CRYPTO_ALG_AEAD_NEW to indicate whether >a given algorithm has been converted to the new interface where >IV skipping is done outside of the IV generator. This flag can >be removed once the conversion is complete. All GCM implementations available on recent Intel systems successfully tested (i.e NX and CAAM not tested). Just to clarify: from a caller's perspective, using seqniv(rfc4106(gcm(aes))) is still the right invocation? Or shall I now use seqiv? > >Cheers, Ciao Stephan