linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] crypto: doc - clarify hash callbacks state machine

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

Message-ID: <20180316151642.GA6606@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 23:16:42 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:     Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: doc - clarify hash callbacks state machine

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:39:45PM +0200, Horia Geantă wrote:
> Even though it doesn't make too much sense, it is perfectly legal to:
> - call .init() and then (as many times) .update()
> - subseqently _not_ call any of .final(), .finup() or .export()

Actually it makes perfect sense, because there can be an arbitrary
number of requests for a given tfm.  There is no requirement that
you must finalise the first request before submitting new ones.

IOW there can be an arbitrary number of outstanding requests even
without the user intentionally abandoning any hash request.

So please modify your commit description.

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