On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 14:06 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Actually, while I think it will be worthwhile going forward to > implement such an 'auxiliary data' feature in a generic way, I still > think we should address the issue at hand without too much > complication. > > If we pedal back to the version of 'mac80211: move struct aead_req > off the stack' that uses kzalloc() instead of aead_request_alloc(), > we can simply add some space for aad[] and/or zero[], and get rid of > the kmem cache entirely. > > If you're past this point already, i won't bother but otherwise I can > rework 'mac80211: move struct aead_req off the stack' so that the > other patch is no longer required (and IIRC, this is actually > something you proposed yourself a couple of iterations ago?) Yes, I did consider that. It makes some sense, and I guess the extra memcpy() would be cheaper than the extra alloc? I'd happily use that instead of the combination of my two patches. The aead_request_alloc() is just a simple inline anyway, so no real problem not using it. johannes
