From: Jarod Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: add self-tests for rfc4309(ccm(aes)) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:35:38 -0400 Message-ID: <200904150835.38818.jarod@redhat.com> References: <200904091434.59639.jarod@redhat.com> <200904131911.01596.jarod@redhat.com> <20090415112053.GA10188@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:58812 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758920AbZDOMgX (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:36:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090415112053.GA10188@gondor.apana.org.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 15 April 2009 07:20:53 Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 07:11:00PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > > + case -EBADMSG: > > + if (template[i].novrfy) > > + /* verification failure was expected */ > > + goto next_aead_vector; > > /* fall through */ > > We should also fail if novrfy is true and we get a 0 return value. Oh, yeah, whoops, missed that case. Will add that. > I'd also prefer to have the novrfy infrastructure changes to go > into a separate patch. Yeah, wasn't sure if I should do infra separate or not. I'll split things up a bit for the next submission that includes the catch for novrfy true, ret 0. -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com