On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 02:38:59PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/18/15 14:19), Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > @@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ static struct crypto_alg alg = {
> > .cra_module = THIS_MODULE,
> > .cra_u = { .compress = {
> > .coa_compress = crypto842_compress,
> > - .coa_decompress = crypto842_decompress } }
> > + .coa_decompress = crypto842_decompress,
> > + .coa_decompress_noctx = NULL } }
> > };
> >
> > static int __init crypto842_mod_init(void)
> > diff --git a/crypto/compress.c b/crypto/compress.c
> > index c33f076..abb36a8 100644
> > --- a/crypto/compress.c
> > +++ b/crypto/compress.c
> > @@ -33,12 +33,21 @@ static int crypto_decompress(struct crypto_tfm *tfm,
> > dlen);
> > }
> >
> > +static int crypto_decompress_noctx(struct crypto_tfm *tfm,
> > + const u8 *src, unsigned int slen,
> > + u8 *dst, unsigned int *dlen)
> > +{
> > + return tfm->__crt_alg->cra_compress.coa_decompress_noctx(src, slen,
> > + dst, dlen);
> > +}
>
>
> hm... well... sorry, if irrelevant.
> if the algorithm can have a _noctx() decompression function, does it
> automatically guarantee that this algorithm never dereferences a passed
> `struct crypto_tfm *tfm' pointer in its decompress function? in other words,
> can we simply pass that `shared tfm pointer' to the existing decompress
> function instead of defining new symbols, new callbacks, etc.?
>
> cot_decompress_noctx() == cot_decompress(shared_ftm) ?
>
> just a thought.
Will think it if I implement next version in this way. Due to Herbert
comment, interface will be changed so much in next version.
>
> [..]
> > +struct crypto_comp *crypto_alloc_comp_noctx(const char *alg_name,
> > + u32 type, u32 mask)
> > +{
> > + struct crypto_comp *comp;
> > + struct crypto_tfm *tfm;
> > + struct compress_tfm *ops;
> > +
> > + comp = crypto_alloc_comp(alg_name, type, mask);
> > + if (IS_ERR(comp))
> > + return comp;
> > +
> > + tfm = crypto_comp_tfm(comp);
> > + if (!tfm->__crt_alg->cra_compress.coa_decompress_noctx) {
> > + crypto_free_comp(comp);
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> -ENOMEM?
No, it's failure isn't related to NOMEM. Just not support it.
Thanks.
--
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
