Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/crypto: Rework on paes implementation
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     linux390-list@tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, ifranzki@linux.ibm.com,
        ebiggers@kernel.org
References: <20191028082433.qdaabj2imf34ikam@gondor.apana.org.au>
From:   Harald Freudenberger <freude@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2019 11:07:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191028082433.qdaabj2imf34ikam@gondor.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <17eda70d-d1fc-8b9d-ffb3-48b3c8f5799b@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 28.10.19 09:24, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Harald Freudenberger <freude@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>> @@ -165,18 +183,31 @@ static int ecb_paes_crypt(struct skcipher_request *req, unsigned long modifier)
>>        struct skcipher_walk walk;
>>        unsigned int nbytes, n, k;
>>        int ret;
>> +       struct {
>> +               u8 key[MAXPROTKEYSIZE];
>> +       } param;
>>
>>        ret = skcipher_walk_virt(&walk, req, false);
>> +       if (ret)
>> +               return ret;
>> +
>> +       spin_lock(&ctx->pk_lock);
>> +       memcpy(param.key, ctx->pk.protkey, MAXPROTKEYSIZE);
>> +       spin_unlock(&ctx->pk_lock);
> I think using a plain spin lock is unsafe as you may have callers
> from both kernel thread context and BH context.  So you need to
> have at least a spin_lock_bh here.
>
> Cheers,

Thanks, I'll change this.