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: <0529a397-f104-5f3a-663e-7ef2d883dcb2@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:41:23 +0200
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "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



On 10/17/18 9:20 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> 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.
> 

cryptodev is missing the previous commit 329e09893909d409039f6a79757d9b80b67efe39
to which this patch applies.

Kees, did you apply the commit above to your tree?

If so, could you take this patch?

Thanks
--
Gustavo