linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] crypto: inside-secure: safexcel

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: <20181017072034.GD28572@kwain>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:20:34 +0200
From:   Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: inside-secure: safexcel - fix memory allocation

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:17:41PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > On 10/9/18 12:20 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
> > > <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> > >> The original intention is to allocate space for EIP197_DEFAULT_RING_SIZE
> > >> *pointers* to struct, so sizeof(priv->ring[i].rdr_req) should be
> > >> sizeof(*priv->ring[i].rdr_req).
> > >>
> > >> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1473962 ("Sizeof not portable")
> > >> Fixes: 9744fec95f06 ("crypto: inside-secure - remove request list to improve performance")
> > >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Friendly ping. Who can take this?
> 
> Well I tried to take it but it doesn't apply against cryptodev.
> So I presume this can go into the tree that carried the change
> which it depended on?

I would say this should go in cryptodev. The issue is probably because
of other changes that got applied in the meantime. Gustavo can probably
rebase his patch on top of cryptodev, and re-send it.

Thanks!
Antoine

-- 
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com