Hi Phil,

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:09:08PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:

> > I've done some groundwork, mostly research through a well known search
> > engine and in the kernel code. What I've found is now at
> > https://github.com/michaelweiser/cryptodev-linux/commit/30e66ed072d34ad0ca93f7457a9772519ca68de0.
> Looks pretty reasonable. The only thing I would worry about is the
> dropped checks in lines 210 and 228. Was there a specific reason for
> that?

Yeah, they check for NULL pointers themselves. I've seen checks like
those dropped in Herbert Xu's patches and looked at the code of
skcipher_request_free() to find kzfree() which in turn contains:

        if (unlikely(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(mem)))

See https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg18154.html line 120.

> > It compiles but I haven't had a chance to actually test it for function
> > yet. 
> Well, after compiling and loading the module, you could run the tests in
> test/ subdir (note how I subtly try to push you into testing).

I expected nothing else and you've done it very smoothly. ;) I was on
the train when I did that research and could only do some haphazard
compiling of the module on my Mac. Now that I'm at home I've got a huge
agenda, containing some vacation, for the next week, so I most likely
will only get to actual testing by the week after next.

> > What is your take on supporting old kernel versions: Should I #ifdef for
> > < 4.3 or can I just drop ablkcipher like I've done now?
> Yes, sadly we have to support older kernels as well (see existing compat
> code). That's the curse of out-of-tree modules, I fear.

Are a ton of #ifdefs alright then or do you prefer another approach?

Cryptodev-linux-devel mailing list

Reply via email to