[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <23D74823-0DE3-4A87-9E89-310F437A328D@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:41:33 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"<patches@...aro.org>" <patches@...aro.org>,
"<linville@...driver.com>" <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: port CCMP to cryptoapi's CCM driver
On 8 okt. 2013, at 15:01, "David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
>> Hmm, thanks I guess. I'll need to review this in more detail, but I have
>> a question first:
>>
>>> + /* allocate the variable sized aead_request on the stack */
>>> + int l = DIV_ROUND_UP(crypto_aead_reqsize(tfm),
>>> + sizeof(struct aead_request));
>>> + struct aead_request req[1 + l];
>>
>> This looks a bit odd, why round up first and then add one? Why even
>> bother using a struct array rather than some local struct like
>
> Is it even a good idea to be allocating variable sized items
> on the kernel stack?
>
> There has to be enough stack available for the maximum number
> of entries - so there is little point in dynamically sizing it.
Actually, as the size is always the same, it should be feasible to alloc a couple of request structs at init time. would one for rx and one for tx be sufficient? or is this code more reentrant than that?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists