linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX -v2 for .32] crypto, gcm, fix another complete call in complete fuction

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091109190250.GC9588@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:02:50 -0500
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX -v2 for .32] crypto, gcm, fix another complete call in
	complete fuction

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 03:24:14PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> The flow of the complete function (xxx_done) in gcm.c is as follow:

Thanks the patch looks pretty good overall.

> -static void gcm_hash_final_done(struct crypto_async_request *areq,
> -				int err)
> +static void __gcm_hash_final_done(struct aead_request *req,
> +				  struct crypto_gcm_req_priv_ctx *pctx,
> +				  int err)

Just one nit though, do we really need to carry this pctx around
everywhere? It seems to me that it's always crypto_gcm_reqctx(req),
no?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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/