Hi. On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:43:13AM -0700, Loc Ho (lho@xxxxxxxx) wrote: > We wasn't plan on protecting this. It is the caller responsibity to call in the proper order. If the caller want to change the key, it musts do so before issue run or after all run operations completed. Actually, I think it is better if we drop setkey. If the caller want to operate on a different key, create another transform. Are you concern that the underlying driver might have problem handling key change? Fair enough. If caller is not responsible to protect against simultaneous runs it is not a task for kernel to help him. But problem still exists, since there can be a leak in cryptodev_ioctl(CIOCGSESSION): if two or more threads simultaneously entered cryptdev_user_create_session() and each one allocated own session, only the last one will be assigned to the file->private_data and will be eventually freed, others will leak. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
