> On 17 Oct 2016, at 10:54, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> Well, if your other patch to make it OK to be on-stack would be >>> applied instead, this wouldn't make much sense either :) >>> >> >> Yes but that one only fixes ccm not gcm > > Yes, but we can do the same for GCM, no? > No, not really. ccm happens to use aes with the same key for the mac and the encryption. gcm uses an another algo entirely for the mac >>> In this particular patch, we could reduce the size of the struct, >>> but I >>> don't actually think it'll make a difference to go from 48 to 36 >>> bytes, >>> given alignment etc., so I think I'll just leave it as is. >>> >> >> I understand you are in a hurry, but this is unlikely to be the only >> such issue. I will propose an 'auxdata' feature for the crypto api >> that can be used here, but also for any other occurrence where client >> data assoiciated with the request can no longer be allocated on the >> stack > > No objections. I'll merge this anyway today I think, reverting is easy > later. > ok fair enough
