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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1476710169.315.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:16:09 +0200 From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> Cc: "<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>, "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mac80211: move extra crypto data off the stack On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 14:06 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Actually, while I think it will be worthwhile going forward to > implement such an 'auxiliary data' feature in a generic way, I still > think we should address the issue at hand without too much > complication. > > If we pedal back to the version of 'mac80211: move struct aead_req > off the stack' that uses kzalloc() instead of aead_request_alloc(), > we can simply add some space for aad[] and/or zero[], and get rid of > the kmem cache entirely. > > If you're past this point already, i won't bother but otherwise I can > rework 'mac80211: move struct aead_req off the stack' so that the > other patch is no longer required (and IIRC, this is actually > something you proposed yourself a couple of iterations ago?) Yes, I did consider that. It makes some sense, and I guess the extra memcpy() would be cheaper than the extra alloc? I'd happily use that instead of the combination of my two patches. The aead_request_alloc() is just a simple inline anyway, so no real problem not using it. johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists