linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Crypto: Add SHA-3 hash algorithm

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: <1469618.GoqEiobQFD@positron.chronox.de>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:24:20 +0200
From:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To:	Raveendra Padasalagi <raveendra.padasalagi@...adcom.com>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jon Mason <jonmason@...adcom.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Pramod Kumar <pramod.kumar@...adcom.com>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Crypto: Add SHA-3 hash algorithm

Am Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2016, 21:39:17 schrieb Raveendra Padasalagi:

Hi Raveendra,

> I need some clarification to address your comment
> 
> "Shouldn't there be a priority here?"
> 
> What I know regarding priority value for an algorithm
> is higher the priority value it will be get selected for execution.
> 
> For example, let's say for software implementation of the algorithm if
> priority value
> is specified as 100 and hardware driver implementation of the same
> algorithm uses
> the priority value of 300 then hardware algo is what selected for execution.
> 
> I just had a look at priority value specified for other hash
> algorithm's and none of the
> software implementation specify any value, So it will be 0.
> 
> I think it's okay to not to specify any priority value for software
> implementation,
> as hardware implementation can use non zero value if it needs higher
> priority.
> 
> What's your opinion ?

You are fully correct.

To be in line with the other hashes, maybe let us leave it at 0. I was 
thinking about "backend" ciphers that should never ever be selected (like the 
Intel AES-NI examples) which should have a lower prio than any other cipher. 
But then, they have unique cra_names, so it does not really matter :-)

Ciao
Stephan