From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: CCM/GCM implementation defect Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:17:03 +0800 Message-ID: <20150423231703.GB26635@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20150423032619.GA17648@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150423114533.GI8928@secunet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Paul Wouters , Linux Crypto Mailing List To: Steffen Klassert Return-path: Received: from helcar.hengli.com.au ([209.40.204.226]:39316 "EHLO helcar.hengli.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932410AbbDWXRM (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:17:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150423114533.GI8928@secunet.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:45:34PM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > Adding a second template for the correct implementation is > probaply the only thing that we can do if we don't want to > break backwards compatibility. But maybe we can add a warning > to the old implementation, such that users notice that they > use a broken version. If we are going to do a warning I think the place to do it would be in xfrm_algo.c. We could add an insecure/warning flag and if then print a warning if said algorithm is used. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt