linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] crypto: AF

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: <1732600.iOtRA28Mku@tachyon.chronox.de>
Date:	Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:54:13 +0100
From:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	'Quentin Gouchet' <quentin.gouchet@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	ABI/API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] crypto: AF_ALG: add AEAD support

Am Montag, 5. Januar 2015, 21:51:06 schrieb Herbert Xu:

Hi Herbert,

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 11:46:50AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > The need for that check lies in aead_recvmsg:
> >         /*
> >         
> >          * first chunk of input is AD -- one scatterlist entry is one
> >          page,
> >          * and we process only one scatterlist, the maximum size of AD is
> >          * one page
> >          */
> >         
> >         sg_init_table(&assoc, 1);
> >         sg_set_page(&assoc, sg_page(sg), ctx->aead_assoclen, sg->offset);
> >         aead_request_set_assoc(&ctx->aead_req, &assoc,
> >         ctx->aead_assoclen);
> > 
> > There you see that I only create an sg table with one entry for the AD. If
> > we would allow an arbitrary AD size, I would see the need of a for loop
> > in addition to the one directly beneath this AD scatterlist setting: one
> > for identifying how many sg entries I need to allocate and one for the
> > actual assignment.
> > 
> > As I felt that one page should be sufficient for the AD, I wanted to avoid
> > the extra overhead for another for loop.
> 
> Please remove the limit as otherwise we would never be able to
> add support for this in a future kernel as appliations won't be
> able to rely on it.
> 
> There is no such limit in the kernel interface and we shouldn't
> be adding one here.

Ok, will do.
> 
> Cheers,


-- 
Ciao
Stephan
--
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/