[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1747e6e9-35dc-48cc-7345-4f0412ba2521@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:45:18 -0600
From: Gary R Hook <ghook@....com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
CC: <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Andrew Lutomirski
<luto@...nel.org>, Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Subject: Re: Remaining crypto API regressions with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
On 12/12/2016 12:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
<...snip...>
>
> I have a patch to make these depend on !VMAP_STACK.
>
>> drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-crypto-aes-cmac.c:105,119,142
>> drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-crypto-sha.c:95,109,124
>> drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-crypto-aes-xts.c:162
>> drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-crypto-aes.c:94
>
> According to Herbert, these are fine. I'm personally less convinced
> since I'm very confused as to what "async" means in the crypto code,
> but I'm going to leave these alone.
I went back through the code, and AFAICT every argument to sg_init_one() in
the above-cited files is a buffer that is part of the request context. Which
is allocated by the crypto framework, and therefore will never be on the
stack.
Right?
I don't (as yet) see a need for any patch to these. Someone correct me
if I'm
missing something.
<...snip...>
--
This is my day job. Follow me at:
IG/Twitter/Facebook: @grhookphoto
IG/Twitter/Facebook: @grhphotographer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
