Am Freitag, 21. April 2017, 13:11:27 CEST schrieb Herbert Xu:
Hi Herbert,
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Stephan Müller wrote:
> > @@ -757,12 +887,14 @@ static void aead_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk)
> >
> > af_alg_release_parent(sk);
> >
> > }
> >
> > -static int aead_accept_parent(void *private, struct sock *sk)
> > +static int aead_accept_parent_nokey(void *private, struct sock *sk)
> >
> > {
> >
> > struct aead_ctx *ctx;
> > struct alg_sock *ask = alg_sk(sk);
> >
> > - unsigned int len = sizeof(*ctx) + crypto_aead_reqsize(private);
> > - unsigned int ivlen = crypto_aead_ivsize(private);
> > + struct aead_tfm *tfm = private;
> > + struct crypto_aead *aead = tfm->aead;
> > + unsigned int len = sizeof(*ctx) + crypto_aead_reqsize(aead);
> > + unsigned int ivlen = crypto_aead_ivsize(aead);
> >
> > ctx = sock_kmalloc(sk, len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!ctx)
> >
> > @@ -789,7 +921,7 @@ static int aead_accept_parent(void *private, struct
> > sock *sk)>
> > ask->private = ctx;
> >
> > - aead_request_set_tfm(&ctx->aead_req, private);
> > + aead_request_set_tfm(&ctx->aead_req, aead);
> >
> > aead_request_set_callback(&ctx->aead_req, CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_BACKLOG,
> >
> > af_alg_complete, &ctx->completion);
>
> Please don't mix unrelated cleanups like this with the real change.
> It makes reviewing harder than necessary.
>
After checking again, IMHO that is no unreleated cleanup or even a cleanup at
all.
void *private used to be struct crypto_aead and is now struct aead_tfm. struct
crypto_aead is found in private->aead. Hence, the patch assigned private to
tfm and then obtained the struct crypto_aead pointer. As this was not
necessary before, it is a required extension IMHO.
Ciao
Stephan
