On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 01:54:20PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > I think the case where skcipher_copy_iv() fails may be handled incorrectly. > Wouldn't it need to set walk.nbytes to 0 so as to not confuse callers which > expect that behavior? Or maybe it should be calling skcipher_walk_done(). Good catch. I'll fix and repost. > Setting walk->in.sg and walk->out.sg is redundant with the scatterwalk_start() > calls. Will remove. > This gets called with uninitialized 'walk.flags'. This was somewhat of a > theoretical problem with the old blkcipher_walk code but it looks like now it > will interact badly with the new SKCIPHER_WALK_SLEEP flag. As far as I can see, > whether the flag will end up set or not can depend on the uninitialized value. > It would be nice if this problem could be avoided entirely be setting flags=0. Right. I'll fix this as well. > I'm also wondering about the choice to not look at 'atomic' until after the call > to skcipher_walk_skcipher(). Wouldn't this mean that the choice of 'atomic' > would not be respected in e.g. the kmalloc() in skcipher_copy_iv()? The atomic flag is meant to be used in cases such as aesni where you need to do kernel_fpu_begin after the call to start the walk. IOW sleeping is fine at the start but not on subsequent walk calls. > I don't see any users of the "async" walking being introduced; are some planned? skcipher_walk is meant to unite blkcipher_walk and ablkcipher_walk. The latter will use the async case. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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
