Am Freitag, 5. Dezember 2014, 23:46:06 schrieb Herbert Xu:
Hi Herbert,
> > +static struct proto_ops algif_aead_ops = {
> > + .family = PF_ALG,
> > +
> > + .connect = sock_no_connect,
> > + .socketpair = sock_no_socketpair,
> > + .getname = sock_no_getname,
> > + .ioctl = sock_no_ioctl,
> > + .listen = sock_no_listen,
> > + .shutdown = sock_no_shutdown,
> > + .getsockopt = sock_no_getsockopt,
> > + .mmap = sock_no_mmap,
> > + .bind = sock_no_bind,
> > + .accept = sock_no_accept,
> > +
> > + .release = af_alg_release,
> > + .sendmsg = aead_sendmsg,
> > + .sendpage = aead_sendpage,
> > + .recvmsg = aead_recvmsg,
> > + .poll = aead_poll,
> > + .setsockopt = aead_setsockopt,
>
> No it should go into the parent setsockopt. Perhaps add a setsockopt
> to af_alg_type in order to keep this out of the generic code.
What about adding a setauthsize to af_alg_type that is called from the parent
setsockopt? I would like to keep all user space interfaces as close together
as possible. With a new setsockopt callback, I fear that user space interface
handling may be scattered around.
Currently I am simply thinking about the following:
partent setsockopt:
case ALG_SET_AEAD_AUTHSIZE:
if (sock->state == SS_CONNECTED)
goto unlock;
if (!type->setauthsize)
goto unlock;
err = type->setauthsize(ask->private, optlen);
af_alg_type:
int (*setauthsize)(void *private, unsigned int authsize);
--
Ciao
Stephan
--
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
