| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
commit 1a263ae60b04de959d9ce9caea4889385eefcc7b upstream.
gcc-10 has started warning about conflicting types for a few new
built-in functions, particularly 'free()'.
This results in warnings like:
crypto/xts.c:325:13: warning: conflicting types for built-in function ‘free’; expected ‘void(void *)’ [-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
because the crypto layer had its local freeing functions called
'free()'.
Gcc-10 is in the wrong here, since that function is marked 'static', and
thus there is no chance of confusion with any standard library function
namespace.
But the simplest thing to do is to just use a different name here, and
avoid this gcc mis-feature.
[ Side note: gcc knowing about 'free()' is in itself not the
mis-feature: the semantics of 'free()' are special enough that a
compiler can validly do special things when seeing it.
So the mis-feature here is that gcc thinks that 'free()' is some
restricted name, and you can't shadow it as a local static function.
Making the special 'free()' semantics be a function attribute rather
than tied to the name would be the much better model ]
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
This adds the module loading prefix "crypto-" to the template lookup
as well.
For example, attempting to load 'vfat(blowfish)' via AF_ALG now correctly
includes the "crypto-" prefix at every level, correctly rejecting "vfat":
net-pf-38
algif-hash
crypto-vfat(blowfish)
crypto-vfat(blowfish)-all
crypto-vfat
Reported-by: Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
Add xts_crypt() function that can be used by cipher implementations that can
benefit from parallelized cipher operations.
Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@mbnet.fi>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
XTS has fixed blocksize of 16. Define XTS_BLOCK_SIZE and use in place of
crypto_cipher_blocksize().
Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@mbnet.fi>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
Fixes generated by 'codespell' and manually reviewed.
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi>
|
|
Use ERR_CAST(x) rather than ERR_PTR(PTR_ERR(x)). The former makes more
clear what is the purpose of the operation, which otherwise looks like a
no-op.
The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
// <smpl>
@@
type T;
T x;
identifier f;
@@
T f (...) { <+...
- ERR_PTR(PTR_ERR(x))
+ x
...+> }
@@
expression x;
@@
- ERR_PTR(PTR_ERR(x))
+ ERR_CAST(x)
// </smpl>
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
The XTS blockmode uses a copy of the IV which is saved on the stack
and may or may not be properly aligned. If it is not, it will break
hardware cipher like the geode or padlock.
This patch encrypts the IV in place so we don't have to worry about
alignment.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
Tested-by: Stefan Hellermann <stefan@the2masters.de>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
|
XTS currently considered to be the successor of the LRW mode by the IEEE1619
workgroup. LRW was discarded, because it was not secure if the encyption key
itself is encrypted with LRW.
XTS does not have this problem. The implementation is pretty straightforward,
a new function was added to gf128mul to handle GF(128) elements in ble format.
Four testvectors from the specification
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/pdf00086.pdf
were added, and they verify on my system.
Signed-off-by: Rik Snel <rsnel@cube.dyndns.org>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
|
