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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:49:59 +0800 From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org> 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 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