On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 11:45:00AM -0800, Nathan Huckleberry wrote:
> > int __blk_crypto_evict_key(struct blk_crypto_profile *profile,
> > const struct blk_crypto_key *key)
> > @@ -389,22 +377,22 @@ int __blk_crypto_evict_key(struct blk_crypto_profile *profile,
> >
> > blk_crypto_hw_enter(profile);
> > slot = blk_crypto_find_keyslot(profile, key);
> > - if (!slot)
> > - goto out_unlock;
> > -
> > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&slot->slot_refs) != 0)) {
> > - err = -EBUSY;
> > - goto out_unlock;
> > + if (slot) {
> > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&slot->slot_refs) != 0)) {
> > + /* BUG: key is still in use by I/O */
> > + err = -EBUSY;
> > + } else {
> > + err = profile->ll_ops.keyslot_evict(
> > + profile, key,
> > + blk_crypto_keyslot_index(slot));
> > + }
> > + /*
> > + * Callers may free the key even on error, so unlink the key
> > + * from the hash table and clear slot->key even on error.
> > + */
> > + hlist_del(&slot->hash_node);
> > + slot->key = NULL;
> > }
>
> The !slot case still needs to be handled. If profile->num_slots != 0
> and !slot, we'll get an invalid index from blk_crypto_keyslot_index.
>
> With that change,
> Reviewed-by: Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
> Huck
>
> > - err = profile->ll_ops.keyslot_evict(profile, key,
> > - blk_crypto_keyslot_index(slot));
> > - if (err)
> > - goto out_unlock;
> > -
> > - hlist_del(&slot->hash_node);
> > - slot->key = NULL;
> > - err = 0;
> > -out_unlock:
> > blk_crypto_hw_exit(profile);
> > return err;
> > }
I'm not sure what you're referring to. The !slot case is handled correctly, and
it's the same as before.
- Eric
