Hi Stephan. On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:25:05PM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: > Hi Steffen, Herbert, > > may I ask for the reasons why crypto_alg_match exists? Doesn't it > implement crypto_alg_lookup -- and that not even complete? Is there a > particular reason why this exact flag of crypto_alg_match is really > needed in the context of crypto_user? > > Unless there is such valid reason, may I ask whether we can remove > crypto_alg_match and simply use crypto_alg_lookup in all instances where > crypto_alg_match is invoked using the following replacement: > > alg = crypto_alg_lookup(p->cru_name, p->cru_type, p->cru_mask) > > The only problem with this replacement is that p->cru_driver_name is not > considered with that.
With crypto_alg_lookup() we don't know whether the match is based on the driver or the algorithm name. That's why we have crypto_alg_match(), here we can ask for a driver or an algorithm match. In some situations it is important to have an exact match on the crypto driver name. For example if a user wants to instantiate or delete a certain inplementation of an algorithm. In this case we need to know whether this exact algorithm driver is registered in the system. > Do you think a double invocation of > crypto_alg_lookup should be done or that even the user space interface > should be changed such that cru_driver_name is removed from it? Whatever we do, we can't remove cru_driver_name as this is exported to userspace and tools already use it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
