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))) return; 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? -- Thanks, Michael _______________________________________________ Cryptodev-linux-devel mailing list Cryptodev-linux-devel@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/cryptodev-linux-devel
