On 10/17/18 9:20 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:17:41PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>> On 10/9/18 12:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
>>>> <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE
>>>>> *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be
>>>>> sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req).
>>>>>
>>>>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable")
>>>>> Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Friendly ping. Who can take this?
>>
>> Well I tried to take it but it doesn't apply against cryptodev.
>> So I presume this can go into the tree that carried the change
>> which it depended on?
>
> I would say this should go in cryptodev. The issue is probably because
> of other changes that got applied in the meantime. Gustavo can probably
> rebase his patch on top of cryptodev, and re-send it.
>
cryptodev is missing the previous commit 329e09893909d409039f6a79757d9b80b67efe39
to which this patch applies.
Kees, did you apply the commit above to your tree?
If so, could you take this patch?
Thanks
--
Gustavo
