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  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]
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:48:59 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,, Eric Biggers <>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <>,
        LKML <>,
        Netdev <>,
        David Miller <>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Samuel Neves <>,
        "Daniel J . Bernstein" <>,
        Tanja Lange <>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <>,
        Karthikeyan Bhargavan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] zinc: Introduce minimal cryptography library

> On Aug 7, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <> wrote:
> Hey Andy,
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:43 PM Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
>> For "zinc: add simd helper", I think it should be in include/linux,
>> and include/linux/simd.h should (immediately or maybe in the future)
>> include <asm/simd.h> to pick up arch-specific stuff.  And the patch
>> should get sent to
> I guess you saw my prompt about that in the previous commit message?
> Based on your encouragement, I implemented it:
> This is _far_ more
> invasive than I wanted to be, as I don't want this patch submission to
> grow unwieldy and never be merged, but I guess we can roll with this
> for now...

I really wish we had a way to see that we use asm-generic’s copy of a header in all cases except where an arch opts out.

>> In your blake2s_arch() implementation, you're not passing in a
>> simd_context_t.  Is that still a work in progress?  I thought the plan
>> was to pass it in rather than doing the check in the _arch()
>> functions.
> I'm inclined to do the explicit context passing only when a function
> is likely to be used in that kind of environment, and adjust as
> needed. Long term, anyway, that API will be removed once the x86 guys
> figure out lazy FPU restoration and the amortization doesn't add
> anything.

Fair enough.

> Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists