On Mon, 2016-10-17 at 14:06 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Actually, while I think it will be worthwhile going forward to
> implement such an 'auxiliary data' feature in a generic way, I still
> think we should address the issue at hand without too much
> If we pedal back to the version of 'mac80211: move struct aead_req
> off the stack' that uses kzalloc() instead of aead_request_alloc(),
> we can simply add some space for aad and/or zero, and get rid of
> the kmem cache entirely.
> If you're past this point already, i won't bother but otherwise I can
> rework 'mac80211: move struct aead_req off the stack' so that the
> other patch is no longer required (and IIRC, this is actually
> something you proposed yourself a couple of iterations ago?)
Yes, I did consider that.
It makes some sense, and I guess the extra memcpy() would be cheaper
than the extra alloc?
I'd happily use that instead of the combination of my two patches. The
aead_request_alloc() is just a simple inline anyway, so no real problem
not using it.