You're right. Nevermind.
Reviewed-by: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:50 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 11:45:00AM -0800, Nathan Huckleberry wrote:
> > > int __blk_crypto_evict_key(struct blk_crypto_profile *profile,
> > > const struct blk_crypto_key *key)
> > > @@ -389,22 +377,22 @@ int __blk_crypto_evict_key(struct blk_crypto_profile *profile,
> > >
> > > blk_crypto_hw_enter(profile);
> > > slot = blk_crypto_find_keyslot(profile, key);
> > > - if (!slot)
> > > - goto out_unlock;
> > > -
> > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&slot->slot_refs) != 0)) {
> > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > - goto out_unlock;
> > > + if (slot) {
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&slot->slot_refs) != 0)) {
> > > + /* BUG: key is still in use by I/O */
> > > + err = -EBUSY;
> > > + } else {
> > > + err = profile->ll_ops.keyslot_evict(
> > > + profile, key,
> > > + blk_crypto_keyslot_index(slot));
> > > + }
> > > + /*
> > > + * Callers may free the key even on error, so unlink the key
> > > + * from the hash table and clear slot->key even on error.
> > > + */
> > > + hlist_del(&slot->hash_node);
> > > + slot->key = NULL;
> > > }
> >
> > The !slot case still needs to be handled. If profile->num_slots != 0
> > and !slot, we'll get an invalid index from blk_crypto_keyslot_index.
> >
> > With that change,
> > Reviewed-by: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Huck
> >
> > > - err = profile->ll_ops.keyslot_evict(profile, key,
> > > - blk_crypto_keyslot_index(slot));
> > > - if (err)
> > > - goto out_unlock;
> > > -
> > > - hlist_del(&slot->hash_node);
> > > - slot->key = NULL;
> > > - err = 0;
> > > -out_unlock:
> > > blk_crypto_hw_exit(profile);
> > > return err;
> > > }
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to. The !slot case is handled correctly, and
> it's the same as before.
>
> - Eric
