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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] crypto: move curve_id of ECDH from the key to
 algorithm name
To:     <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>, <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>, <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>, <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
CC:     <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, <xuzaibo@huawei.com>,
        <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com>
References: <1614064219-40701-1-git-send-email-yumeng18@huawei.com>
 <1614064219-40701-4-git-send-email-yumeng18@huawei.com>
 <8b96c136-dca9-5b6a-2221-e906d265c40b@microchip.com>
From:   yumeng <yumeng18@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <4f16302b-7002-fd96-f08c-245f49e3233c@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:19:08 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8b96c136-dca9-5b6a-2221-e906d265c40b@microchip.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2021/2/23 18:44, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com 写道:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/23/21 9:10 AM, Meng Yu wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/crypto/atmel-ecc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/atmel-ecc.c
>> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int atmel_ecdh_set_secret(struct crypto_kpp *tfm, const void *buf,
>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>          }
>>
>> -       ctx->n_sz = atmel_ecdh_supported_curve(params.curve_id);
>> +       ctx->n_sz = atmel_ecdh_supported_curve(ctx->curve_id);
>>          if (!ctx->n_sz || params.key_size) {
>>                  /* fallback to ecdh software implementation */
>>                  ctx->do_fallback = true;
> 
> Now that you moved the curve id info into the alg name, and it is
> no longer dynamically discovered when decoding the key, does it
> still make sense to keep the curve id, the key size checks, and
> the fallback to the software implementation?
> 
Yes, I think we can keep this code if 'atmel-ecc' may support
new other curves at future, and if you're sure P256 is the only curve 
'atmel-ecc' uses, and it will never be changed, we can delete it.

> I don't have an atecc508 at hand to test the changes, but I expect
> your changes won't affect the functionality.
> 
OK, when you or your team members have an atecc508, please help test.