Jivin [EMAIL PROTECTED] lays it down ...
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:41:16 +1100, Herbert Xu said:
>
> > OK this is not pretty but it is actually correct. Notice how we only
> > overstep the mark for E_KEY but never for D_KEY. Since D_KEY is only
> > initialised after this, it is OK for us to trash the start of D_KEY.
>
> I think a big comment block describing this behavior is called for,
> as it carries an implicit requirement that D_KEY and E_KEY remain
> adjacent in memory. Anybody allocating space between them is in for
> a rude awakening....
Sounds like a bug waiting to happen to me.
Why not do something like the attached patch.
Cheers,
Davidm
--
David McCullough, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ph:+61 734352815
Secure Computing - SnapGear http://www.uCdot.org http://www.cyberguard.com
Index: linux-2.6.x/crypto/aes.c
===================================================================
RCS file: linux-2.6.x/crypto/aes.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.6
diff -u -r1.1.1.6 aes.c
--- linux-2.6.x/crypto/aes.c 31 Aug 2005 00:33:03 -0000 1.1.1.6
+++ linux-2.6.x/crypto/aes.c 14 Mar 2006 22:53:06 -0000
@@ -78,12 +78,11 @@
struct aes_ctx {
int key_length;
- u32 E[60];
- u32 D[60];
+ u32 _KEYS[120];
};
-#define E_KEY ctx->E
-#define D_KEY ctx->D
+#define E_KEY (&ctx->_KEYS[0])
+#define D_KEY (&ctx->_KEYS[60])
static u8 pow_tab[256] __initdata;
static u8 log_tab[256] __initdata;
