linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] crypto: streebog

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]

Date:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:55:37 +0300
From:   Vitaly Chikunov <vt@...linux.org>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.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,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] crypto: streebog - add Streebog hash function

Mimi,

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:48:33AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 08:51 +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:08:51PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:41:05AM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is the first part of attempts to add to the Integrity subsystem
> > > > ability of verifying file and module signatures by Russian GOST
> > > > algorithms.
> > > 
> > > It would be better if these patches are posted together.  That
> > > way we don't end up with a situation where the algorithm goes into
> > > the kernel but the ultimate user is rejected.
> > 
> > IMA does not need any particular patching inside of their subtree to
> > support new hash, because it is using any hash registered in Hash Info
> > which is still under crypto subtree. I added appropriate patch into v3
> > which is already posted a week ago, and tested it to work correctly with
> > ima_appraise=fix.
> 
> That's true, but the target subsystem should be made aware of the new
> usage.

Did you mean by re-sending the patch with Cc to linux-integrity? Or
something more?

Thanks,