[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161226082058.GA9013@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 16:20:58 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Jason@...c4.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
ebiggers3@...il.com, tom@...bertland.com, davem@...emloft.net,
luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 0/6] Switch BPF's digest to SHA256
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> Since there are plenty of uses for the new-in-4.10 BPF digest feature
> that would be problematic if malicious users could produce collisions,
> the BPF digest should be collision-resistant. SHA-1 is no longer
> considered collision-resistant, so switch it to SHA-256.
>
> The actual switchover is trivial. Most of this series consists of
> cleanups to the SHA256 code to make it usable as a standalone library
> (since BPF should not depend on crypto).
>
> The cleaned up library is much more user-friendly than the SHA-1 code,
> so this also significantly tidies up the BPF digest code.
>
> This is intended for 4.10. If this series misses 4.10 and nothing
> takes its place, then we'll have an unpleasant ABI stability
> situation.
Can you please explain why BPF needs to be able to use SHA directly
rather than through the crypto API?
Thanks,
--
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists