From: Stephan Mueller Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] crypto: caam - add support for RSA algorithm Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 23:51 +0200 Message-ID: <2370625.CgO9A4qjJ6@positron.chronox.de> References: <1463660118-19188-1-git-send-email-tudor-dan.ambarus@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, horia.geanta@nxp.com To: Tudor Ambarus Return-path: Received: from mail.eperm.de ([89.247.134.16]:39666 "EHLO mail.eperm.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754282AbcESVu6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2016 17:50:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1463660118-19188-1-git-send-email-tudor-dan.ambarus@nxp.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2016, 15:15:15 schrieb Tudor Ambarus: Hi Tudor, as I am looking into the RSA countermeasures, I am wondering how much of countermeasures are actually applied inside hardware implementations. Can you please point me to or illustrate any countermeasures your implementation does? The goal for my question is to identify whether we need to have a generic implementation one that is enabled on a per-implementation basis. Ciao Stephan