| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49A7A71E.50702@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:41:02 +0100 From: Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> CC: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bug of dm-crypt? Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 01:31:56PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: >> I had ever heard from you that the only thing guaranteed in the >> completion function of async ablkcipher cryption is the req->data has >> the value you set before. The request pointer itself may be changed. But >> in dm-crypt, I found they rely on request pointer in completion >> function: kcryptd_async_done. This makes my AES-NI cryptd usage panic. >> >> Do you think that is a bug? > > Absolutely. > > It should use cc->req instead. ok, I'll check it and try to fix that. Can you send me backtrace from that panic? What's wrong in async callback now - mempool_free using async_req directly? (Btw in some previous discussuion I asked if cryptd can be used for some kind of parallel speedup for dm-crypt in async mode and response was that cryptd "is only meant to be a demo showing how an async implementation should be written". So this changed to real working thread for AES-NI?) Milan -- mbroz@...hat.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists