From: Stephan Mueller Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/2] crypto: AF_ALG: add AEAD support Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:35:07 +0100 Message-ID: <13294516.zBBDkdi9pn@tachyon.chronox.de> References: <1923793.K38mGRD6eo@tachyon.chronox.de> <6238416.vGUni1CI4i@tachyon.chronox.de> <20150126000631.GA18350@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Daniel Borkmann , 'Quentin Gouchet' , 'LKML' , linux-crypto-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Neil Horman To: Herbert Xu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150126000631.GA18350-lOAM2aK0SrRLBo1qDEOMRrpzq4S04n8Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015, 11:06:31 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:19:17AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > + /* > > + * Require exactly one IOV block as the AEAD operation is a one shot > > + * due to the authentication tag. > > + */ > > + if (msg->msg_iter.nr_segs != 1) > > + return -ENOMSG; > > Why does limit exist? The fact that you have to do it in one go does > not limit the number of receive IOVs, at least not to one. It seems I have misunderstood you in the last discussion. in the last discussion [1] I tried to explain why I did not consider multiple IOVs. In the reply to my answer [2] I seem to have understood that the current implementation is fine. So, shall I now implement the multiple IOVs approach outlined in [1]? If yes, how many IOVs shall I consider? > > Cheers, [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg12861.html [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg12935.html -- Ciao Stephan