Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> writes: > On 12/9/21 10:03 AM, Nicolai Stange wrote: >> diff --git a/crypto/dh_helper.c b/crypto/dh_helper.c >> index aabc91e4f63f..9f21204e5dee 100644 >> --- a/crypto/dh_helper.c >> +++ b/crypto/dh_helper.c >> @@ -45,18 +72,24 @@ int crypto_dh_encode_key(char *buf, unsigned int len, const struct dh *params) >> .type = CRYPTO_KPP_SECRET_TYPE_DH, >> .len = len >> }; >> + int group_id; >> >> if (unlikely(!len)) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> ptr = dh_pack_data(ptr, end, &secret, sizeof(secret)); >> + group_id = (int)params->group_id; >> + ptr = dh_pack_data(ptr, end, &group_id, sizeof(group_id)); > > Me being picky again. > To my knowledge, 'int' doesn't have a fixed width, but is rather only > guaranteed to hold certain values. > So as soon as one relies on any fixed size (as this one does) I tend to > use fixed size type like 'u32' to make it absolutely clear what is to be > expected here. > > But the I don't know the conventions in the crypto code; if an 'int' is > assumed to be 32 bits throughout the crypto code I guess we should be fine. Yes, I thought about this, too. However, the other, already existing fields like ->key_size and ->p_size are getting serialized as unsigned ints and I decided to stick to that for ->group_id as well. Except for the testmgr vectors, the encoding is internal to the crypto_dh_encode_key() and crypto_dh_decode_key() pair anyway -- all that would happen if sizeof(int) != 4 is that the tests would fail. So, IMO, making the serialization of struct dh to use u32 throughout is not really in scope for this series and would probably deserve a patch on its own, if desired. Thanks, Nicolai -- SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg), GF: Ivo Totev
