lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC 01/10] crypto: factor async completion for general use
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:29:47AM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>> > With regards to the wait being uninterruptible, I agree that this should be the
>> > default behavior, because I think users waiting for specific crypto requests are
>> > generally not prepared to handle the wait actually being interrupted. After
>> > interruption the crypto operation will still proceed in the background, and it
>> > will use buffers which the caller has in many cases already freed. However, I'd
>> > suggest taking a close look at anything that was actually doing an interruptible
>> > wait before, to see whether it was a bug or intentional (or "doesn't matter").
>> >
>> > And yes there could always be a crypto_wait_req_interruptible() introduced if
>> > some users need it.
>>
>> So this one was a bit of a shocker. I though the _interruptible use
>> sites seemed
>> wrong in the sense of being needless. However, after reading your feedback and
>> reviewing the code I'm pretty sure every single one of them (including
>> the one I've
>> added in dm-verity-target.c this merge window) are down right dangerous and
>> can cause random data corruption... so thanks for pointing this out!
>>
>> I though of this patch set as a "make the code pretty" for 4.13 kind
>> of patch set.
>> Looks like it's a bug fix now, maybe even stable material.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll roll a v2 and we'll see.
>>
>
> Any that are called only by kernel threads would theoretically be safe since
> kernel threads don't ordinarily receive signals. But I think that at least the
> drbg and gcm waits can be reached by user threads, since they can be called via
> algif_rng and algif_aead respectively.
>
> I recommend putting any important fixes first, so they can be backported without
> depending on crypto_wait_req().
>

OK, I'll send out a separate bug fix series first and rebase the
crypto_wait one on top
of it then.

Thanks,
Gilad

--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker

"If you take a class in large-scale robotics, can you end up in a
situation where the homework eats your dog?"
-- Jean-Baptiste Queru

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-11 10:56    [W:0.057 / U:0.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site