http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907692 --- Comment #11 from grant k <grantksupport@operamail.com> --- is this appropriately an issue for 'security', 'basesystem' or 'kernel' component? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907692 grant k <grantksupport@operamail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(grantksupport@ope | |ramail.com) | --- Comment #13 from grant k <grantksupport@operamail.com> --- (In reply to Takashi Iwai from comment #12)

Check /etc/modules-load.d/* files. I guess some files contain these modules. If yes, some package might own this file, or has created this file. In that case, it's just a packaging issue.

nope. checking on all three machies/cases, egrep -rlni "aes|sha|sse" /etc/modules-load.d/ (empty) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907692 grant k <grantksupport@operamail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FEATURE |--- Flags| |needinfo?(tiwai@suse.com) --- Comment #15 from grant k <grantksupport@operamail.com> --- (In reply to Takashi Iwai from comment #14)

Ah OK, I read the whole report again and understood the issue. Sorry for the noise.

The reported problem is basically harmless. It's just a part of automatic load for aes. These modules give the same alias to "aes". Some of modules are hardware specific, so it returns -ENODEV at module init. This results in such error messages.

So, unless you really see the real problem (e.g. something doesn't work as expected), just ignore these messages. These are there as designed, no real errors. I understand this is ugly, but that's life.

the remaining issue, relevant to case (3), is that only -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 11K Nov 26 01:13 sha512_generic.ko exists sha1_generic.ko sha256_generic.ko are missing. see Comment #9, above -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907692 --- Comment #17 from grant k <grantksupport@operamail.com> --- (In reply to Takashi Iwai from comment #16) for case (3), @ desktop, with flags: -ssse3 -aes cat /proc/cpuinfo | egrep "model name|flags" | head -n2 model name : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 945 Processor flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nopl nonstop_tsc extd_apicid pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt hw_pstate npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save

They are just built-in, so they are always there on that kernel flavor. Hence modprobe "fails". But the functionality is already present on your system.

Can you clarify where it 'is', then? lsmod | egrep -i "aes|sha|sse" | grep -v sharp aes_x86_64 17131 0 sha512_generic 12942 0 which requires /etc/modprobe.d/99-local-crypto.conf alias aes aes-x86_64 alias sha512 sha512_generic but modprobe sha1 modprobe: ERROR: could not find module by name='sha1_generic' modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'sha1_generic': Function not implemented modprobe sha256 modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'sha256_ssse3': No such device modprobe sha1_generic lsmod | egrep -i "aes|sha|sse" | grep -v sharp aes_x86_64 17131 0 sha512_generic 12942 0 modprobe sha256_generic lsmod | egrep -i "aes|sha|sse" | grep -v sharp aes_x86_64 17131 0 sha512_generic 12942 0 I.e., there's no sha1_* sha256_* module/capability -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907692 --- Comment #19 from Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com> --- And, note that lsmod shows only the loaded modules, not the built-in drivers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907692 --- Comment #21 from grant k <grantksupport@operamail.com> --- (In reply to Bernhard Wiedemann from comment #20)

if you are curious, you can have a look at grep "sha1" /proc/kallsyms

thanks. here, egrep "sha1|sha256|sha512|aes" /proc/kallsyms ffffffff812ea4e0 t sha1_init ffffffff812ea520 t sha1_import ffffffff812ea590 t sha1_export ffffffff812ea600 T crypto_sha1_update ffffffff812ea6d0 t sha1_final ffffffff812ea850 t sha256_init ffffffff812ea8a0 t sha256_import ffffffff812ea910 t sha256_export ffffffff812ea980 t sha256_transform ffffffff812ec520 T crypto_sha256_update ffffffff812ec5c0 t sha256_final ffffffff812ec780 T crypto_aes_expand_key ffffffff812ecb70 T crypto_aes_set_key ffffffff812ecba0 t aes_encrypt ffffffff812ed990 t aes_decrypt ffffffff81ac2070 R __ksymtab_crypto_sha1_update ffffffff81ac2080 R __ksymtab_crypto_sha256_update ffffffff81ad09b0 R __ksymtab_crypto_aes_expand_key ffffffff81ad09c0 R __ksymtab_crypto_aes_set_key ffffffff81adb190 r __kcrctab_crypto_sha1_update ffffffff81adb198 r __kcrctab_crypto_sha256_update ffffffff81ae2630 r __kcrctab_crypto_aes_expand_key ffffffff81ae2638 r __kcrctab_crypto_aes_set_key ffffffff81af1c52 r __kstrtab_crypto_sha1_update ffffffff81af1c65 r __kstrtab_crypto_sha256_update ffffffff81af1c7a r __kstrtab_crypto_aes_set_key ffffffff81af1c8d r __kstrtab_crypto_aes_expand_key ffffffff81e98b80 d sha256_algs ffffffff81e98e60 d aes_alg ffffffff81f5444b t sha1_generic_mod_init ffffffff81f54457 t sha256_generic_mod_init ffffffff81f54468 t aes_init ffffffff8207ac58 t __initcall_sha1_generic_mod_init6 ffffffff8207ac60 t __initcall_sha256_generic_mod_init6 ffffffff8207ac68 t __initcall_aes_init6 ffffffff8208d0b9 t sha1_generic_mod_fini ffffffff8208d0c5 t sha256_generic_mod_fini ffffffff8208d0d6 t aes_fini ffffffffa11f5720 t aes_encrypt [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f5740 t aes_decrypt [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f7000 d aes_alg [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f574e t aes_fini [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f6060 r __kstrtab_crypto_aes_decrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f6050 r __kcrctab_crypto_aes_decrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f6077 r __kstrtab_crypto_aes_encrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f6058 r __kcrctab_crypto_aes_encrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f6040 r __ksymtab_crypto_aes_encrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f7120 d __this_module [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f574e t cleanup_module [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f4b80 t aes_dec_blk [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f6030 r __ksymtab_crypto_aes_decrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f4000 t aes_enc_blk [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f5710 t crypto_aes_encrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa11f5730 t crypto_aes_decrypt_x86 [aes_x86_64] ffffffffa12df9f0 t gss_krb5_aes_make_key [rpcsec_gss_krb5] ffffffffa12de910 t gss_krb5_aes_encrypt [rpcsec_gss_krb5] ffffffffa12debf0 t gss_krb5_aes_decrypt [rpcsec_gss_krb5] ffffffffa0f88b90 t hmac_sha256.constprop.1 [bluetooth] ffffffffa0d55000 t sha512_init [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d55090 t sha384_init [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d55120 t sha512_transform [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d56060 r sha512_K [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d557d0 t sha512_final [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d57000 d padding.28600 [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d55920 t sha384_final [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d57080 d sha512_algs [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d559a3 t sha512_generic_mod_fini [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d56048 r __kstrtab_crypto_sha512_update [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d56040 r __kcrctab_crypto_sha512_update [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d57360 d __this_module [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d559a3 t cleanup_module [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d556e0 T crypto_sha512_update [sha512_generic] ffffffffa0d56030 r __ksymtab_crypto_sha512_update [sha512_generic] which is not completely 'uniform' for the sha1/sha256/sha512 variants. no idea yet, whether that's a problem or not. also, no clear why they're treated differently. als no idea what effect that has on LUKS ... getting there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.