On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:41:16 +1100, Herbert Xu said: > OK this is not pretty but it is actually correct. Notice how we only > overstep the mark for E_KEY but never for D_KEY. Since D_KEY is only > initialised after this, it is OK for us to trash the start of D_KEY. I think a big comment block describing this behavior is called for, as it carries an implicit requirement that D_KEY and E_KEY remain adjacent in memory. Anybody allocating space between them is in for a rude awakening....
Attachment:
pgpNA5dwyqsYz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [2.6 patch] crypto/aes.c: array overrun
- From: David McCullough <[email protected]>
- Re: [2.6 patch] crypto/aes.c: array overrun
- References:
- [2.6 patch] crypto/aes.c: array overrun
- From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
- Re: [2.6 patch] crypto/aes.c: array overrun
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- [2.6 patch] crypto/aes.c: array overrun
- Prev by Date: Re: question: pid space semantics.
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #4]
- Previous by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] crypto/aes.c: array overrun
- Next by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] crypto/aes.c: array overrun
- Index(es):
 |