@@ -2351,7 +2351,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *create_authenc_wr(struct aead_request *req,
snents = sg_nents_xlen(req->src, req->assoclen + req->cryptlen,
CHCR_SRC_SG_SIZE, 0);
dst_size = get_space_for_phys_dsgl(dnents);
- kctx_len = (ntohl(KEY_CONTEXT_CTX_LEN_V(aeadctx->key_ctx_hdr)) << 4)
+ kctx_len = (KEY_CONTEXT_CTX_LEN_G(ntohl(aeadctx->key_ctx_hdr)) << 4)
- sizeof(chcr_req->key_ctx);
transhdr_len = CIPHER_TRANSHDR_SIZE(kctx_len, dst_size);
reqctx->imm = (transhdr_len + req->assoclen + req->cryptlen) <
kctx_len = (ntohl(KEY_CONTEXT_CTX_LEN_V(aeadctx->key_ctx_hdr)) << 4) - sizeof(chcr_req->key_ctx); can't possibly be endian-safe. Look: ->key_ctx_hdr is __be32. And KEY_CONTEXT_CTX_LEN_V is "shift up by 24 bits". On little-endian hosts it sees b0 b1 b2 b3 in memory, inteprets that into b0 + (b1 << 8) + (b2 << 16) + (b3 << 24), shifts up by 24, resulting in b0 << 24, does ntohl (byteswap on l-e), gets b0 and shifts that up by 4. So we get b0 * 16 - sizeof(...). Sounds reasonable, but on b-e we get b3 + (b2 << 8) + (b1 << 16) + (b0 << 24), shift up by 24, yielding b3 << 24, do ntohl (no-op on b-e) and then shift up by 4. Resulting in b3 << 28 - sizeof(...), i.e. slightly under b3 * 256M. Then we increase it some more and pass to alloc_skb() as size. Somehow I doubt that we really want a quarter-gigabyte skb allocation here... Note that when you are building those values in #define FILL_KEY_CTX_HDR(ck_size, mk_size, d_ck, opad, ctx_len) \ htonl(KEY_CONTEXT_VALID_V(1) | \ KEY_CONTEXT_CK_SIZE_V((ck_size)) | \ KEY_CONTEXT_MK_SIZE_V(mk_size) | \ KEY_CONTEXT_DUAL_CK_V((d_ck)) | \ KEY_CONTEXT_OPAD_PRESENT_V((opad)) | \ KEY_CONTEXT_SALT_PRESENT_V(1) | \ KEY_CONTEXT_CTX_LEN_V((ctx_len))) ctx_len ends up in the first octet (i.e. b0 in the above), which matches the current behaviour on l-e. If that's the intent, this thing should've been kctx_len = (KEY_CONTEXT_CTX_LEN_G(ntohl(aeadctx->key_ctx_hdr)) << 4) - sizeof(chcr_req->key_ctx); instead - fetch after ntohl() we get (b0 << 24) + (b1 << 16) + (b2 << 8) + b3, shift it down by 24 (b0), resuling in b0 * 16 - sizeof(...) both on l-e and on b-e. PS: when sparse warns you about endianness problems, it might be worth checking if there really is something wrong. And I don't mean "slap __force cast on it"... Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> ---