From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tadeusz Struk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] crypto: qat - Add support for RSA algorithm Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:14:51 -0700 Message-ID: <55A678EB.4020604@intel.com> References: <20150714183243.18949.93255.stgit@tstruk-mobl1> <20150714183259.18949.581.stgit@tstruk-mobl1> <20150715130333.GA2006@gondor.apana.org.au> <55A676BF.3090500@intel.com> <20150715150939.GA3347@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, qat-linux@intel.com, pingchao.yang@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:15400 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752390AbbGOPPU (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:15:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150715150939.GA3347@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/15/2015 08:09 AM, Herbert Xu wrote: >> This is even more complicated because the user can first allocate request >> > and then call setkey causing fallback. I'm now thinking about adding the >> > limitation to rsa generic or I can still use rsa-generic which I know that >> > its ctx is smaller than mine. What do you think? > This would preclude any future assembly implementations from being > used. Besides this is how we implement fallbacks everywhere else > in the crypto API so I don't see why this one should be different. Are you ok if I just add the same constrains to rsa-generic? > >> The rsa_parse_key helper in the rsa generic that parses the key in BER format >> > produces the MPIs.I didn't want to add yet another BER parser here. Should I? > I don't see why not. Certainly beats having to go in and out of > MPIs. Ok will do that. Thanks, T