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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YQ0Qm+Xs1g/7Eant@fedora> <20210809141027.860850-1-chouhan.shreyansh630@gmail.com>
 <20210820083111.GA28484@gondor.apana.org.au> <CAMj1kXGMPimX0_dR_kLuzZjuJK9rM=uCpRDtoJq0UjWq12M10A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210820125315.GB28484@gondor.apana.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20210820125315.GB28484@gondor.apana.org.au>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:23:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXGCtH2V23S+b=dBj_owxjbhpnarOzZxjfjRM38Wt2XFdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: xts_crypt() return if walk.nbytes is 0
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Shreyansh Chouhan <chouhan.shreyansh630@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzbot+20191dc583eff8602d2d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 14:53, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > In spite of that, I have a slight preference for this version, given
> > that it makes it obvious that we bail on two separate conditions:
> > - an error has occurred
> > - no error has occurred but the resulting walk is empty
> >
> > Testing walk.nbytes only needlessly obfuscates the code, as we need to
> > return 'err' in the end anyway.
>
> I disagree, this is how most skcipher walkers are structured, they
> never explicitly test on err and only terminate the loop when
> walk->nbytes hits zero, in which case err is returned as is.
>
> I don't see why this particular skcipher walker should deviate
> from that paradigm.  In fact it is exactly that deviation that
> caused the bug in the first instance.
>

Fair enough.