Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 21:51:57 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>,
        Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@arista.com>,
        Salam Noureddine <noureddine@arista.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the crypto tree
Message-ID: <20231031045157.GA12981@sol.localdomain>
References: <20231030155809.6b47288c@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20231030160953.28f2df61@canb.auug.org.au>
 <ZT896a2j3hUI1NF+@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20231030150243.0e66ba73@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231030150243.0e66ba73@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 03:02:43PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 13:23:53 +0800 Herbert Xu wrote:
> > If we simply apply this patch to the netdev tree then everything
> > should work at the next merge window.  But perhaps you could change
> > the patch description to say something like remove the obsolete
> > crypto_hash_alignmask.  It's not important though.
> 
> I'm happy to massage the commit message and apply the fix to net.
> But is it actually 100% correct to do that? IOW is calling
> crypto_ahash_alignmask() already not necessary in net-next or does
> it only become unnecessary after some prep work in crypto-next?
> 
> We can tell Linus to squash this fix into the merge of either
> crypto-next or net-next, I'm pretty sure he'd be okay with that..

It's safe to fold the patch into net-next.  It actually looks like a bug to be
using the alignmask in the way that net/ipv4/tcp_ao.c is using it.  You don't
want to be erroring out just because the algorithm declared an alignmask.

- Eric