On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies:
>
> Jason personally does not like FIPS, and is afraid of
> "subpar crypto". Albeit this patch set strictly isn't about
> crypto at all; the crypto subsystem is in the unlu
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 04:40:03AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > CRC32 is another case study that I would like to bring up:
> > - the current status is a bit of a mess, where we treat crc32() and
> > crc32c() differently - the latter is exposed by libcrc32.ko as a
> > wrapper around the cryp
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:48:42AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 9/19/18 9:40 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:10:55AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> submitting-patches.rst says:
> >> The Signed-off-by: tag indicates that the signer was involved in the
> >> development of the pa
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 08:40:11AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> Could we please build planning for this crypto failure day into
> wireguard now rather than have to do it later? It doesn't need to be
> full cipher agility, it just needs to be the ability to handle multiple
> protocol versions ..
Hi Jason,
On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 04:30:01PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > I'll check if the 3.12 patches above can be safely backported, and I'll
> > have to re-apply the missing part of the one that was trimmed down
> > (commit 620c411 ("crypto: more robust crypto_memneq")).
>
> I'm vagu
Hi Jason,
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 02:59:53PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hey Willy,
>
> Linux 3.10 is inexplicably missing crypto_memneq, making all crypto
> mac comparisons use non constant-time comparisons. Bad news bears.
>
> 3.12 got these backported with
> d68e944a8fcb2c6212b38064771
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:53:49PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:41:17PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 04:20:00PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > >
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 04:20:00PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Sven,
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:16:18PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> > > Fix performance regressions compared to current
Hi Sven,
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:16:18PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> Fix performance regressions compared to current kernel LZ4
Your patch contains mostly style cleanups which certainly are welcome
but make the whole patch hard to review. These cleanups would have been
better into a separate,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:00:32AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:21:16AM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> > On 01/08/2017 12:25 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > >On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 05:55:42PM +0100, Sven Schmidt wrote:
> > >> This patch updates LZ4 kernel module to LZ4 v1.7.2 by Yann Co
Hi Andrey,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:29:33PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> While fuzzing our 3.10 based kernel we observed some crashes, e.g:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/
>
> It appears that 3.10-stable lacks some crypto related fixes. Here is my
> attempt
> to backport them.
> Many p
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:49:57AM +0100, Thomas D. wrote:
> Hi
>
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >> Is there a dependency I missed in 4.1? I don't really see anything that
> >> could have gone wrong there.
> >
> > Or maybe Thomas can run a bisect ?
>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:12:56PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 02/17/2016 10:24 AM, Thomas D. wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > So either the upstream patch is broken, or the 4.1 backport is
> >> > wrong/missing
> >> > dependency/missing fix.
> >> >
> >> > Any chance you could
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:49:08PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:04:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 04:23:46AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > The attached patch actually defines ecb_encrypt_iv() and
> > > ecb_
14 matches
Mail list logo
