linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lfsr: a simple binary Galois linear feedback shift register

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20150401184625.GA9447@dyad.arnhem.chello.nl>
Date:	Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:46:25 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lfsr: a simple binary Galois linear feedback shift
 register

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 06:46:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Since it is used in conjunction with hashing, it is possible that hashing
> > can produce a value of 0. Do we really want to have a warning for that?
> > Alternatively, we can pass in some flag to decide if a warning should be
> > issued.
> 
> So if we present it as generic code we cannot assume what it'll be used
> for. The only thing we know is that it should never be 0, so warn for it
> and let the user deal with it.

Also while i like the lfsr probe i feel we should listen to my wiser self and
go with a simpler linear probe first. Only of we find prpblems with that should
we look into different things.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/