linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/15] crypto: poly1305 - use structures for key and accumulator

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: <CAHmME9rtsCk8ZLt05xRKMGr4CVRnaUvCaVOS_WX3N22HOat4-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:46:30 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kaiser <gkaiser@...gle.com>,
        Samuel Neves <samuel.c.p.neves@...il.com>,
        Tomer Ashur <tomer.ashur@...t.kuleuven.be>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/15] crypto: poly1305 - use structures for key
 and accumulator

Hi Eric,

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 1:17 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> Do you prefer that this be merged before or after Zinc?  It seems it may still
> be a while before the community is satisfied with Zinc (and Wireguard which is
> in the same patchset), and I don't want this blocked unnecessarily...  So on my
> part I'd prefer to just have this merged as-is.

Personally I'd prefer this be merged after Zinc, since there's work to
be done on adjusting the 20->12 in chacha20. That's not really much of
a reason though. But maybe we can just sidestep the ordering concern
all together:

What I suspect we should do is make the initial Zinc merge _without_
those top two patches that replace the crypto api's implementations
with Zinc, and defer those until after the initial merges. Those
commits are already written -- so there's no chance it won't happen
due to laziness or something -- and I think the general merge will go
a bit more smoothly if we wait until after. (Somebody suggested we do
it this way at Plumbers, and was actually a bit surprised I had
already ported the crypto API stuff to Zinc.) This way, Adiantum and
Zinc aren't potentially co-dependent in their initial merges and we
can work on the details carefully with each other after both have
landed. I figure this might make things a little bit less stressful
for both of us. How would you feel about doing it that?

Jason