Hi Kim,
I try to address some of the comments. I am not mentioning things that I
agree with you.
> + */
> +static int get_sg_count(struct scatterlist *sg_list, int nbytes)
> +{
> + struct scatterlist *sg = sg_list;
> + int sg_nents = 0;
> +
> + while (nbytes) {
> + sg_nents++;
> + if (sg->length > nbytes)
> + break;
this is slightly different - this condition shouldn't need checking
here - see [1] below..
> + nbytes -= sg->length;
> + sg = sg_next(sg);
> + }
> +
> + return sg_nents;
> +}
Without the check, nbytes could become negative. The aead test case
with .np will crash(ie. gcm tests), those test have sg->length >
nbytes.
About aad_len, we didn't release code that use aad yet. We did test this
function with aad_len none zero(the gcm tests).
About the irq_disable or spin_lock.
The driver could be used by a kernel thread and esp4 at same time. As I
know process is preemptable. When the driver is used by a process it is
possible to be preempted. The hardware require scatter/gather descriptor
to be consecutive. So, if the process get a gather descriptor and then
it is preempted by another process or esp4 which get a gather descriptor
and return to the original process, the origianl process could get a non
consecutive gather descriptor.
So, if spin_lock is recommended then I have to use spin_lock_irq_save,
which use irq_disable too. Do you think that is acceptable?
Thanks and regards
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
