[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161210083923.GB8630@zzz>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2016 00:39:23 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, luto@...capital.net,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, luto@...nel.org, smueller@...onox.de
Subject: Re: Remaining crypto API regressions with CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 04:16:43PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Why did you drop me from the CC list when you were replying to
> my email?
>
Sorry --- this thread is Cc'ed to the kernel-hardening mailing list (which was
somewhat recently revived), and I replied to the email that reached me from
there. It looks like it currently behaves a little differently from the vger
mailing lists, in that it replaces "Reply-To" with the address of the mailing
list itself rather than the sender. So that's how you got dropped. It also
seems to add a prefix to the subject...
I
> >> Are you sure? Any instance of *_ON_STACK must only be used with
> >> sync algorithms and most drivers under drivers/crypto declare
> >> themselves as async.
> >
> > Why exactly is that? Obviously, it wouldn't work if you returned from the stack
> > frame before the request completed, but does anything stop someone from using an
> > *_ON_STACK() request and then waiting for the request to complete before
> > returning from the stack frame?
>
> The *_ON_STACK variants (except SHASH of course) were simply hacks
> to help legacy crypto API users to cope with the new async interface.
> In general we should avoid using the sync interface when possible.
>
> It's a bad idea for the obvious reason that most of our async
> algorithms want to DMA and that doesn't work very well when you're
> using memory from the stack.
Sure, I just feel that the idea of "is this algorithm asynchronous?" is being
conflated with the idea of "does this algorithm operate on physical memory?".
Also, if *_ON_STACK are really not allowed with asynchronous algorithms can
there at least be a comment or a WARN_ON() to express this?
Thanks,
Eric
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.
