Hi.
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:43:13AM -0700, Loc Ho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> We wasn't plan on protecting this. It is the caller responsibity to call in
> the proper order. If the caller want to change the key, it musts do so before
> issue run or after all run operations completed. Actually, I think it is
> better if we drop setkey. If the caller want to operate on a different key,
> create another transform. Are you concern that the underlying driver might
> have problem handling key change?
Fair enough. If caller is not responsible to protect against
simultaneous runs it is not a task for kernel to help him.
But problem still exists, since there can be a leak in
cryptodev_ioctl(CIOCGSESSION): if two or more threads simultaneously
entered cryptdev_user_create_session() and each one allocated own
session, only the last one will be assigned to the file->private_data
and will be eventually freed, others will leak.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
