On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:16:35AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 07:14:17PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >
> > Also, I don't see the point of the macros, other than to obfuscate things. To
> > keep things straightforward, I think we should keep the explicit function
> > prototypes for each algorithm.
>
> I agree. Kees, please get rid of the macros.
Okay, if we do that, then we'll likely be dropping a lot of union logic
(since ecb and cbc end up with identical params and ctr and xts do too):
typedef void (*common_glue_func_t)(void *ctx, u8 *dst, const u8 *src);
typedef void (*common_glue_cbc_func_t)(void *ctx, u128 *dst, const u128 *src);
typedef void (*common_glue_ctr_func_t)(void *ctx, u128 *dst, const u128 *src,
le128 *iv);
typedef void (*common_glue_xts_func_t)(void *ctx, u128 *dst, const u128 *src,
le128 *iv);
...
struct common_glue_func_entry {
unsigned int num_blocks; /* number of blocks that @fn will process */
union {
common_glue_func_t ecb;
common_glue_cbc_func_t cbc;
common_glue_ctr_func_t ctr;
common_glue_xts_func_t xts;
} fn_u;
};
These would end up being just:
typedef void (*common_glue_func_t)(void *ctx, u8 *dst, const u8 *src);
typedef void (*common_glue_iv_func_t)(void *ctx, u8 *dst, const u8 *src,
le128 *iv);
...
struct common_glue_func_entry {
unsigned int num_blocks; /* number of blocks that @fn will process */
union {
common_glue_func_t func;
common_glue_iv_func_t iv_func;
} fn_u;
Is that reasonable?
--
Kees Cook
