On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:07:34AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> > On 26 Jul 2017, at 00:36, Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 04:42:38PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> +static int crypto_scomp_init_tfm(struct crypto_tfm *tfm)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + mutex_lock(&scomp_lock);
> >> + ret = crypto_scomp_alloc_all_scratches();
> >> + mutex_unlock(&scomp_lock);
> >> +
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> > If you allocate the scratch buffers at init_tfm, don't you end
> > up with a situation where if you allocate two tfms of the same algo
> > then you get twice the number of scratches?
> > If that is the case, we should implement a reference count
> > mechanism.
> > Am I missing something?
> >
>
> Isn't the mutex supposed to take care of that?
Ignore my previous question. There is already a reference count
mechanism that prevents that to happen.
Your change sounds correct to me.
Regards,
--
Giovanni
