> On 17 Oct 2016, at 10:54, Johannes Berg <johan...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Well, if your other patch to make it OK to be on-stack would be
>>> applied instead, this wouldn't make much sense either :)
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes but that one only fixes ccm not gcm
> 
> Yes, but we can do the same for GCM, no?
> 

No, not really. ccm happens to use aes with the same key for the mac and the 
encryption. gcm uses an another algo entirely for the mac

>>> In this particular patch, we could reduce the size of the struct,
>>> but I
>>> don't actually think it'll make a difference to go from 48 to 36
>>> bytes,
>>> given alignment etc., so I think I'll just leave it as is.
>>> 
>> 
>> I understand you are in a hurry, but this is unlikely to be the only
>> such issue. I will propose an 'auxdata' feature for the crypto api
>> that can be used here, but also for any other occurrence where client
>> data assoiciated with the request can no longer be allocated on the
>> stack
> 
> No objections. I'll merge this anyway today I think, reverting is easy
> later.
> 

ok fair enough

Reply via email to