Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200519190211.76855-1-ardb@kernel.org> <20200528073349.GA32566@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <CAMj1kXGkvLP1YnDimdLOM6xMXSQKXPKCEBGRCGBRsWKAQR5Stg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200529080508.GA2880@gondor.apana.org.au> <CAMj1kXE43VvEXyYQF=s5HybhF6Wq23wDTrvTfNV9d4fUVZZ8aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200529115126.GA3573@gondor.apana.org.au> <CAMj1kXFFPKWwwSpLnPmNa_Up1syMb7T5STG7Tw8mRuRqSzc9vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200529120216.GA3752@gondor.apana.org.au> <CAMj1kXF2-jJ6yGh9m759V2858_c45txoUBgKirvR-4z4GOHUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200529131953.GA9187@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20200529131953.GA9187@gondor.apana.org.au>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 15:41:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXHnQhLWUC_dPeuscEutOZPGzW4ZGaqphT2mSExmfChtsg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/2] crypto: add CTS output IVs for arm64 and testmgr
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 15:19, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 03:10:43PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > OK, so the undocumented assumption is that algif_skcipher requests are
> > delineated by ALG_SET_IV commands, and that anything that gets sent to
> > the socket in between should be treated as a single request, right? I
>
> Correct.
>

So what about the final request? At which point do you decide to
return the final chunk of data that you have been holding back in
order to ensure that you can perform the final processing correctly if
it is not being followed by a ALG_SET_IV command?