Am Freitag, 21. April 2017, 13:11:27 CEST schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Stephan Müller wrote: > > @@ -757,12 +887,14 @@ static void aead_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk) > > > > af_alg_release_parent(sk); > > > > } > > > > -static int aead_accept_parent(void *private, struct sock *sk) > > +static int aead_accept_parent_nokey(void *private, struct sock *sk) > > > > { > > > > struct aead_ctx *ctx; > > struct alg_sock *ask = alg_sk(sk); > > > > - unsigned int len = sizeof(*ctx) + crypto_aead_reqsize(private); > > - unsigned int ivlen = crypto_aead_ivsize(private); > > + struct aead_tfm *tfm = private; > > + struct crypto_aead *aead = tfm->aead; > > + unsigned int len = sizeof(*ctx) + crypto_aead_reqsize(aead); > > + unsigned int ivlen = crypto_aead_ivsize(aead); > > > > ctx = sock_kmalloc(sk, len, GFP_KERNEL); > > if (!ctx) > > > > @@ -789,7 +921,7 @@ static int aead_accept_parent(void *private, struct > > sock *sk)> > > ask->private = ctx; > > > > - aead_request_set_tfm(&ctx->aead_req, private); > > + aead_request_set_tfm(&ctx->aead_req, aead); > > > > aead_request_set_callback(&ctx->aead_req, CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_BACKLOG, > > > > af_alg_complete, &ctx->completion); > > Please don't mix unrelated cleanups like this with the real change. > It makes reviewing harder than necessary. > After checking again, IMHO that is no unreleated cleanup or even a cleanup at all. void *private used to be struct crypto_aead and is now struct aead_tfm. struct crypto_aead is found in private->aead. Hence, the patch assigned private to tfm and then obtained the struct crypto_aead pointer. As this was not necessary before, it is a required extension IMHO. Ciao Stephan