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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:20:55 +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 11:10 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:49:59AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> 
> Since we only support blocksize == 16, that means the alignment
> cannot exceed 16 bytes.  So just always align to 16 bytes and that
> should make crypto_gcm_reqctx trivial once optimised by the
> compiler.

Does it seem a little tricky?

Anyway, I will prepare a patch for pure bug fix, and leave performance
optimization for later.

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/