| Message ID | 20220517143047.3054498-1-jannh@google.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | bd52cd5e23f134019b23f0c389db0f9a436e4576 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390/crypto: fix scatterwalk_unmap() callers in AES-GCM | expand |
On 2022-05-17 20:01, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:30:47PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: >> The argument of scatterwalk_unmap() is supposed to be the void* that >> was >> returned by the previous scatterwalk_map() call. >> The s390 AES-GCM implementation was instead passing the pointer to the >> struct scatter_walk. >> >> This doesn't actually break anything because scatterwalk_unmap() only >> uses >> its argument under CONFIG_HIGHMEM and ARCH_HAS_FLUSH_ON_KUNMAP. >> >> Note that I have not tested this patch in any way, not even >> compile-tested >> it. >> >> Fixes: bf7fa038707c ("s390/crypto: add s390 platform specific aes gcm >> support.") >> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> >> --- >> IDK which tree this has to go through - s390 or crypto? >> maybe s390 is better, since they can actually test it? >> >> arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > This can go via the s390 tree, however I'd like to have an ACK from > Harald, who wrote the original code. > >> diff --git a/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c b/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c >> index 54c7536f2482..1023e9d43d44 100644 >> --- a/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c >> +++ b/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c >> @@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static inline void >> _gcm_sg_unmap_and_advance(struct gcm_sg_walk *gw, >> unsigned int nbytes) >> { >> gw->walk_bytes_remain -= nbytes; >> - scatterwalk_unmap(&gw->walk); >> + scatterwalk_unmap(gw->walk_ptr); >> scatterwalk_advance(&gw->walk, nbytes); >> scatterwalk_done(&gw->walk, 0, gw->walk_bytes_remain); >> gw->walk_ptr = NULL; >> @@ -776,7 +776,7 @@ static int gcm_out_walk_go(struct gcm_sg_walk *gw, >> unsigned int minbytesneeded) >> goto out; >> } >> >> - scatterwalk_unmap(&gw->walk); >> + scatterwalk_unmap(gw->walk_ptr); >> gw->walk_ptr = NULL; >> >> gw->ptr = gw->buf; >> >> base-commit: 42226c989789d8da4af1de0c31070c96726d990c >> -- >> 2.36.0.550.gb090851708-goog >> Give me a chance to test this and when the testcases all pass, I'll give a green light....
diff --git a/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c b/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c index 54c7536f2482..1023e9d43d44 100644 --- a/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c +++ b/arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c @@ -701,7 +701,7 @@ static inline void _gcm_sg_unmap_and_advance(struct gcm_sg_walk *gw, unsigned int nbytes) { gw->walk_bytes_remain -= nbytes; - scatterwalk_unmap(&gw->walk); + scatterwalk_unmap(gw->walk_ptr); scatterwalk_advance(&gw->walk, nbytes); scatterwalk_done(&gw->walk, 0, gw->walk_bytes_remain); gw->walk_ptr = NULL; @@ -776,7 +776,7 @@ static int gcm_out_walk_go(struct gcm_sg_walk *gw, unsigned int minbytesneeded) goto out; } - scatterwalk_unmap(&gw->walk); + scatterwalk_unmap(gw->walk_ptr); gw->walk_ptr = NULL; gw->ptr = gw->buf;
The argument of scatterwalk_unmap() is supposed to be the void* that was returned by the previous scatterwalk_map() call. The s390 AES-GCM implementation was instead passing the pointer to the struct scatter_walk. This doesn't actually break anything because scatterwalk_unmap() only uses its argument under CONFIG_HIGHMEM and ARCH_HAS_FLUSH_ON_KUNMAP. Note that I have not tested this patch in any way, not even compile-tested it. Fixes: bf7fa038707c ("s390/crypto: add s390 platform specific aes gcm support.") Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> --- IDK which tree this has to go through - s390 or crypto? maybe s390 is better, since they can actually test it? arch/s390/crypto/aes_s390.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) base-commit: 42226c989789d8da4af1de0c31070c96726d990c