Am Donnerstag, 28. Januar 2016, 08:00:25 schrieb Tadeusz Struk:
Hi Tadeusz,
>Hi Stephan,
>
>On 01/27/2016 10:26 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>>> + for (i = 0; i < areq->tsgls; i++)
>>>
>>> > + put_page(sg_page(sg + i));
>>
>> Shouldn't here be the same logic as in put_sgl? I.e.
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < sgl->cur; i++) {
>>
>> if (!sg_page(sg + i))
>>
>> continue;
>>
>> put_page(sg_page(sg + i));
>> sg_assign_page(sg + i, NULL);
>>
>> }
>
>Thanks for reviewing.
>I don't think it is possible that there ever will be any gaps in the tsgl.
>In fact if there is such a possibility then it is a serious problem, because
>it would mean that we are sending NULL ptrs to the ciphers (see line 640):
>
> sg_mark_end(sgl->sg + sgl->cur - 1);
> aead_request_set_crypt(&ctx->aead_req, sgl->sg, ctx-
>first_rsgl.sgl.sg,
> used, ctx->iv);
>
>I don't see any implementation checking for null in sgls. Most of them just
>do:
>
> for_each_sg(sgl, sg, nents, i)
> sg_virt(sg)...
>
>So it would Oops there. I think this check in put_sgl is redundant.
>Thanks,
algif_skcipher does a similar check in skcipher_pull_sgl:
...
if (!sg_page(sg + i))
continue;
...
if (put)
put_page(sg_page(sg + i));
sg_assign_page(sg + i, NULL);
...
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
