[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLw3+nvb9opPeoCyH0MhyVK5UY7H5qeQ2b8GFTUGDGrUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:53:30 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH crypto-next 07/23] block: cryptoloop: Remove VLA usage of skcipher
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 04:11, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ cryptoloop_transfer(struct loop_device *lo, int cmd,
>> unsigned in_offs, out_offs;
>> int err;
>>
>> - skcipher_request_set_tfm(req, tfm);
>> + skcipher_request_set_sync_tfm(req, tfm);
>> skcipher_request_set_callback(req, CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_SLEEP,
>> NULL, NULL);
>>
>
> Does this work?
Everything is a direct wrapper for existing types and functions, so I
wouldn't expect any functional change. I haven't been able to test
this particular interface, though. cryptoloop is very deprecated,
isn't it?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists