On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 09:59, Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ard, > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:38 AM Ard Biesheuvel > <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Use crypto_aegis128_update_u() not crypto_aegis128_update_a() in the > > decrypt path that is taken when the source or destination pointers > > are not aligned. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > crypto/aegis128.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/crypto/aegis128.c b/crypto/aegis128.c > > index d78f77fc5dd1..125e11246990 100644 > > --- a/crypto/aegis128.c > > +++ b/crypto/aegis128.c > > @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static void crypto_aegis128_decrypt_chunk(struct aegis_state *state, u8 *dst, > > crypto_aegis_block_xor(&tmp, &state->blocks[1]); > > crypto_xor(tmp.bytes, src, AEGIS_BLOCK_SIZE); > > > > - crypto_aegis128_update_a(state, &tmp); > > + crypto_aegis128_update_u(state, &tmp); > > The "tmp" variable used here is declared directly on the stack as > 'union aegis_block' and thus should be aligned to alignof(__le64), > which allows the use of crypto_aegis128_update_a() -> > crypto_aegis_block_xor(). It is also passed directly to > crypto_aegis_block_xor() a few lines above. Or am I missing something? > Ah yes, you are absolutely right. Apologies for the noise. I just noticed the asymmetry with the encrypt path, but I should have looked more carefully. Please disregard this patch.
