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  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]
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:49:59 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <>
To:	Herbert Xu <>
Cc:	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX -v2 for .32] crypto, gcm, fix another complete call in
 complete fuction

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 03:02 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: 
> 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?

Yes. This is for performance only. Because crypto_gcm_reqctx(req) is not
so trivial (it needs access tfm), and used by every xxx_done function,
so I think it is better to just call crypto_gcm_reqctx once and pass it
down. Do you think so?

Best Regards,
Huang Ying

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists