This prefixes all crypto module loading with "crypto-" so we never run
the risk of exposing module auto-loading to userspace via a crypto API,
as demonstrated by Mathias Krause:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/4/70
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
kvfree() helper is now available, use it instead of open code it.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
zswap allocates one LZO context per online cpu.
Using vmalloc() for small (16KB) memory areas has drawback of slowing
down /proc/vmallocinfo and /proc/meminfo reads, TLB pressure and poor
NUMA locality, as default NUMA policy at boot time is to interleave
pages :
edumazet:~# grep lzo /proc/vmallocinfo | head -4
0xffffc90006062000-0xffffc90006067000 20480 lzo_init+0x1b/0x30 pages=4 vmalloc N0=2 N1=2
0xffffc90006067000-0xffffc9000606c000 20480 lzo_init+0x1b/0x30 pages=4 vmalloc N0=2 N1=2
0xffffc9000606c000-0xffffc90006071000 20480 lzo_init+0x1b/0x30 pages=4 vmalloc N0=2 N1=2
0xffffc90006071000-0xffffc90006076000 20480 lzo_init+0x1b/0x30 pages=4 vmalloc N0=2 N1=2
This patch tries a regular kmalloc() and fallback to vmalloc in case
memory is too fragmented.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Initialization of cra_list is currently mixed, most ciphers initialize this
field and most shashes do not. Initialization however is not needed at all
since cra_list is initialized/overwritten in __crypto_register_alg() with
list_add(). Therefore perform cleanup to remove all unneeded initializations
of this field in 'crypto/'.
Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@mbnet.fi>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 03:40:36PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > This patch cleanups the crypto code, replaces the init() and fini()
> > with the <algorithm name>_init/_fini
>
> This part ist OK.
>
> > or init/fini_<algorithm name> (if the
> > <algorithm name>_init/_fini exist)
>
> Having init_foo and foo_init won't be a good thing, will it? I'd start
> confusing them.
>
> What about foo_modinit instead?
Thanks for the suggestion, the init() is replaced with
<algorithm name>_mod_init ()
and fini () is replaced with <algorithm name>_mod_fini.
Signed-off-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Kees Cook