Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 13:19:39 +0200
From:   Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Harald Freudenberger <freude@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/crypto: fix scatterwalk_unmap() callers in AES-GCM
Message-ID: <YoTWSxEYPo1MLQTc@osiris>
References: <20220517143047.3054498-1-jannh@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220517143047.3054498-1-jannh@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:30:47PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> The argument of scatterwalk_unmap() is supposed to be the void* that was
> returned by the previous scatterwalk_map() call.
> The s390 AES-GCM implementation was instead passing the pointer to the
> struct scatter_walk.
> 
> This doesn't actually break anything because scatterwalk_unmap() only uses
> its argument under CONFIG_HIGHMEM and ARCH_HAS_FLUSH_ON_KUNMAP.
> 
> Note that I have not tested this patch in any way, not even compile-tested
> it.
> 
> Fixes: bf7fa038707c ("s390/crypto: add s390 platform specific aes gcm support.")
> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> ---
> IDK which tree this has to go through - s390 or crypto?
> maybe s390 is better, since they can actually test it?

Applied to s390 tree. Thanks!