在 2024/11/10 11:36, Herbert Xu 写道:
On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 10:55:59AM +0800, Chenghai Huang wrote:
@@ -2226,15 +2236,15 @@ static int sec_aead_spec_check(struct sec_ctx *ctx, struct sec_req *sreq)
struct device *dev = ctx->dev;
int ret;
- if (unlikely(req->cryptlen + req->assoclen > MAX_INPUT_DATA_LEN ||
- req->assoclen > SEC_MAX_AAD_LEN)) {
- dev_err(dev, "aead input spec error!\n");
+ /* Hardware does not handle cases where authsize is less than 4 bytes */
+ if (unlikely(sz < MIN_MAC_LEN)) {
+ ctx->a_ctx.fallback = true;
This is broken. sec_aead_spec_check is a per-request function,
called without any locking. Therefore it must not modify any
field in the tfm context (at least not without additional locking),
because multiple requests can be issued on the same tfm at any time.
I suppose for this field in particular you could move it to
set_authsize and there it would be safe to change the tfm context.
Cheers,
Hi,
I have found another setup for fallback in the sec_aead_param_check
function, so I need to fix it right too.
The orignal code:
static int sec_aead_param_check(struct sec_ctx *ctx, struct sec_req *sreq)
{
if (ctx->sec->qm.ver == QM_HW_V2) {
if (unlikely(!req->cryptlen || (!sreq->c_req.encrypt &&
req->cryptlen <= authsize))) {
ctx->a_ctx.fallback = true;
return -EINVAL;
}
}
}
After the modification, I used a temporary variable fallback to save the
state:
static int sec_aead_param_check(struct sec_ctx *ctx, struct sec_req
*sreq, bool *fallback)
{
if (ctx->sec->qm.ver == QM_HW_V2) {
if (unlikely(!req->cryptlen || (!sreq->c_req.encrypt &&
req->cryptlen <= authsize))) {
*fallback = true;
return -EINVAL;
}
}
}
Same with the sec_aead_spec_check function.
static int sec_aead_spec_check(struct sec_ctx *ctx, struct sec_req
*sreq, bool *fallback) {
/* Hardware does not handle cases where authsize is less than 4
bytes */
if (unlikely(sz < MIN_MAC_LEN)) {
*fallback = true;
return -EINVAL;
}
}
Do you think it is a better way?
Thanks,