linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v1 5/10] ext4: Add DX_HASH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140924014744.GJ17784@thunk.org>
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:47:44 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	adilger@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/10] ext4: Add DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 support

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:45:27PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> 
> Er... I'll let Ted tell me if I screwed up, but I went through
> the code quite carefully figuring out what value to use, and
> DX_HASH_LEGACY_UNSIGNED is *not* an on-disk encoding.

You're right, but it would probably be safer to have a hole in the
on-disk numbering.  That's because changing the numbering of
EXT2_HASH_*_UNSIGNED will change the ABI of ext2fs_dirhash().  While
we don't officially support a mismatch between the version of e2fsck
and libext2fs, and it's unlikely that other programs would be trying
to use ext2fs_dirhash.

Still, it would probably simpler to not try to assign
DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 to be 6, and to leave better comments about how the
hash values are used.

Cheers,

					- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html