RFC: block/loop.c & crypto

From: Herbert Valerio Riedel (hvr@hvrlab.org)
Date: Sun Jul 22 2001 - 05:21:30 EST


...some time has passed since I've contacted you last time about
crypto/loop issues... but now it's time again to annoy you :-)

 btw; while I'm at it, a question which came to mind while writing this
 mail; is it safe to call...

 if (current->need_resched) schedule();

 ...from within the transfer function? are there possible race conditions
 where another transfer request may come in for the same blocks, while
 another one is still in progress?

some months ago, when I proposed to switch IV calculation completely to
fixed a fixed 512 byte blocksize, I was reminded, that the international
crypto patch was not the only one to make use of the IV calculatiion, and
doing so would break other crypto packages around...

...so I suggested that I'd try a more backward compatible approach, which
would allow old packages to retain compatibility, and new packages aware
of the new flag to set IV calculation to 512 byte blocks...
well the result of this experiment can be seen in the attachment...

so... any comments?

ps: this are the only changes to kernel sources optionally (!) 'required',
in order to use the international crypto api
(see http://cryptoapi.sourceforge.net/ and the package README file
accessible through CVS for more information)


Herbert Valerio Riedel       /    Phone: (EUROPE) +43-1-58801-18840
Email: hvr@gnu.org          /    Finger hvr@gnu.org for GnuPG Public Key
GnuPG Key Fingerprint: 7BB9 2D6C D485 CE64 4748  5F65 4981 E064 883F 4142

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:15 EST