> On 14 Oct 2016, at 14:46, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Is the aad[] actually reused? I would assume it only affects the mac
>> on encryption, and the verification on decryption but I don't think
>> we actually need it back from the crypto routines.
>
> I don't think it's reused.
>
>> Exa
>
> Is the aad[] actually reused? I would assume it only affects the mac
> on encryption, and the verification on decryption but I don't think
> we actually need it back from the crypto routines.
I don't think it's reused.
> Exactly what you said above :-) My patch only touches CCM but as you
>
On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 14:13 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> > But if we allocate things anyway, is it worth expending per-CPU
> > buffers on these?
>
> Ehmm, maybe not. I could spin a v2 that allocates a bigger buffer,
> and copies aad[] into it as well
Copies in/out, I guess. Also there's B_0/
On 14 October 2016 at 14:15, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 14:13 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> > But if we allocate things anyway, is it worth expending per-CPU
>> > buffers on these?
>>
>> Ehmm, maybe not. I could spin a v2 that allocates a bigger buffer,
>> and copies aad[] i
On 14 October 2016 at 14:10, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>> So use kzalloc
>
> Do we really need kzalloc()? We have things on the stack right now, and
> don't initialize, so surely we don't really need to zero things?
>
>> This only addresses one half of the problem. The other problem, i.e.,
>> the fac
On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 15:10 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >
> > So use kzalloc
>
> Do we really need kzalloc()? We have things on the stack right now,
> and don't initialize, so surely we don't really need to zero things?
Err, never mind, I'm an idiot - we *do* initialize to 0, of course.
joha
> So use kzalloc
Do we really need kzalloc()? We have things on the stack right now, and
don't initialize, so surely we don't really need to zero things?
> This only addresses one half of the problem. The other problem, i.e.,
> the fact that the aad[] array lives on the stack of the caller, is
>
