Re: [PATCH] In crypto_add_alg(), 'exact' wants to be initialized to0

[Jesper Juhl]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Steffen Klassert wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:21:39PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, devendra.aaru wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > We declare 'exact' without initializing it and then do:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >        if (strlen(p->cru_driver_name))
> > > >                exact = 1;
> > > >
> > > >        if (priority && !exact)
> > > >                return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > If the first 'if' is not true, then the second will test an
> > > > uninitialized 'exact'.
> > > 
> > > not needed . as the cru_driver_name will always be present :).
> > 
> > If that is indeed the case, and we are guaranteed that, then it would seem 
> > that a patch like the following would be what we want instead??
> > 
> > Please note that this patch is intended just for discussion, nothing else 
> > (which is why I left out a Signed-off-by on purpose), since I've not 
> > tested it beyond checking that it compiles, nor have I verified your claim 
> > that cru_driver_name will always be present.
> > 
> 
> We get cru_driver_name from a netlink message that a user sends us.
> So it depends pretty much on the user whether cru_driver_name is
> set or not. Usually it is set when a user wants to instantiate
> a certain algorithm driver, like "cbc(aes-asm)". If the user just
> wants to instantiate the system default of an algorithm, he can
> set cru_name (e.g. to "cbc(aes)") instead of cru_driver_name.
> 
> Your first patch is correct.
> 
Thank you for the explanation.

Can I take that to mean that I can add your Acked-by: if/when I resend the 
patch?

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.