linux-kernel - [REPORT] Possible unnecessary usages of GFP

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <78a7d726-f2fa-3afb-3451-bbd51a41a48a@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:39:40 +0800
From:   Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
To:     herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:     linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [REPORT] Possible unnecessary usages of GFP_ATOMIC in
 crypto/ablkcipher.c

My tool DCNS reports three unnecessary usages of GFP_ATOMIC in 
crypto/ablkcipher.c:
crypto/ablkcipher.c, 162: kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) in ablkcipher_next_slow
crypto/ablkcipher.c, 199: kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) in ablkcipher_copy_iv
crypto/ablkcipher.c, 315: kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) in setkey_unaligned

I meant to manually check the code, but I find that there are many 
functions calling ablkcipher_next_slow(),
ablkcipher_copy_iv() and setkey_unaligned(), so I am not sure whether 
the above three reports are true.

Could someone help me to validate these reports?
Thanks a lot in advance :)

Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai