Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Subject: [REPORT] Possible unnecessary usages of GFP_ATOMIC in
 crypto/ablkcipher.c
To:     herbert@gondor.apana.org.au
Cc:     linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <78a7d726-f2fa-3afb-3451-bbd51a41a48a@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jul 2018 10:39:40 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

My tool DCNS reports three unnecessary usages of GFP_ATOMIC in 
crypto/ablkcipher.c:
crypto/ablkcipher.c, 162: kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) in ablkcipher_next_slow
crypto/ablkcipher.c, 199: kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) in ablkcipher_copy_iv
crypto/ablkcipher.c, 315: kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) in setkey_unaligned

I meant to manually check the code, but I find that there are many 
functions calling ablkcipher_next_slow(),
ablkcipher_copy_iv() and setkey_unaligned(), so I am not sure whether 
the above three reports are true.

Could someone help me to validate these reports?
Thanks a lot in advance :)


Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai