Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:21:23 +1000
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
To:     Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mfo@canonical.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] crypto: af_alg - fix use-after-free in
 af_alg_accept() due to bh_lock_sock()
Message-ID: <20200610002123.GA6230@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20200605161657.535043-1-mfo@canonical.com>
 <20200608064843.GA22167@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <CAO9xwp0KimEV-inWB8176Z+MyzXqO3tgNtbtYF9JnBtg07-PiA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO9xwp0KimEV-inWB8176Z+MyzXqO3tgNtbtYF9JnBtg07-PiA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:17:32PM -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
>
> Per your knowledge/experience with the crypto subsystem, the changed code
> paths are not hot enough to suffer from such implications?

I don't think replacing a spin-lock with a pair of atomic ops is
going to be too much of an issue.  We can always look at this again
if someone comes up with real numbers of course.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt