On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:21:45PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:00:00AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > > > BTW. gcmaes_crypt_by_sg also contains GFP_ATOMIC and -ENOMEM, behind a > > pretty complex condition. Do you mean that this condition is part of the > > contract that the crypto API provides? > > This is an implementation defect. I think for this case we should > fall back to software GCM if the accelerated version fails. > > > Should "req->src->offset + req->src->length < PAGE_SIZE" use "<=" instead? > > Because if the data ends up at page boundary, it will use the atomic > > allocation that can fail. > > This condition does look strange. It's introduced by the commit > e845520707f85c539ce04bb73c6070e9441480be. Dave, what exactly is > it meant to do? I forgot to Cc Dave Watson. Thanks, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
