On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:18:34PM +0200, Dominik Paulus wrote:
> > I think a return of zero should mean total = -EBADMSG;. In other words
> > this check should be "if (ret < 0) {" and we hit the next else if.
> > Same below again.
>
> As we are wrapping kernel_recvmsg here, we wanted to leave the semantics
> intact as far as possible. The calling code already checks for the correct
> size.
Hm... Ok. Sometimes zero is interpretted as a connection closed and
sometimes reading less than expected is considered a TCP error.
> No, currently, the caller (usbip_sendmsg() / usbip_recvmsg() are the
> only functions calling usbip_crypt(), which itself is static) ensures
> this.
> Admittedly, this isn't great design. We added a check for packetsize <
> USBIP_AUTHSIZE and an appropiate return here.
>
> > > + if (encrypt)
> > > + ret = crypto_aead_encrypt(req);
> > > + else
> > > + ret = crypto_aead_decrypt(req);
> > > +
> >
> > Good on you for figuring out what crypto_aead_en/decrypt() returns.
> > Where are these functions documented?
> >
> > > + switch (ret) {
> > > + case 0: /* Success */
> > > + break;
> > > + case -EINPROGRESS:
> > > + case -EBUSY:
> > > + wait_for_completion(&result.completion);
> > > + break;
> > > + default:
> > > + aead_request_free(req);
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > +
>
> They aren't, actually. Documentation/crypto/api-intro.txt refers to the
> regression test module, which uses exactly those return-values in
> crypto/testmgr.c.
Well that sucks.
> We noticed that wait_for_completion might not be the best idea, since it could
> hang indefinitely, testmgr.c uses wait_for_completion_interruptible. Do we
> want 'interruptible' or 'killable' here?
I think you want the interruptible one wait_for_completion_interruptible()
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
