linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] crypto: sha256 - Move lib/sha256.c to lib/crypto

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52363837-5f5f-53ed-d97c-0de47145987b@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:08:05 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] crypto: sha256 - Move lib/sha256.c to lib/crypto

Hi,

On 18-08-19 17:54, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 10:28:04AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 17-08-19 07:19, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:16:08PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sha256.h b/include/crypto/sha256.h
>>>> similarity index 100%
>>>> rename from include/linux/sha256.h
>>>> rename to include/crypto/sha256.h
>>>
>>> <crypto/sha.h> already has the declarations for both SHA-1 and SHA-2, including
>>> SHA-256.  So I'm not sure a separate sha256.h is appropriate.  How about putting
>>> these declarations in <crypto/sha.h>?
>>
>> The problems with that is that the sha256_init, etc. names are quite generic
>> and they have not been reserved before, so a lot of the crypto hw-accel
>> drivers use them, for private file-local (static) code, e.g.:
>>
>> [hans@...lem linux]$ ack -l sha256_init
>> include/crypto/sha256.h
>> drivers/crypto/marvell/hash.c
>> drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-ops.c
>> drivers/crypto/nx/nx-sha256.c
>> drivers/crypto/ux500/hash/hash_core.c
>> drivers/crypto/inside-secure/safexcel_hash.c
>> drivers/crypto/chelsio/chcr_algo.h
>> drivers/crypto/stm32/stm32-hash.c
>> drivers/crypto/omap-sham.c
>> drivers/crypto/padlock-sha.c
>> drivers/crypto/n2_core.c
>> drivers/crypto/atmel-aes.c
>> drivers/crypto/axis/artpec6_crypto.c
>> drivers/crypto/mediatek/mtk-sha.c
>> drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/qat_algs.c
>> drivers/crypto/img-hash.c
>> drivers/crypto/ccree/cc_hash.c
>> lib/crypto/sha256.c
>> arch/powerpc/crypto/sha256-spe-glue.c
>> arch/mips/cavium-octeon/crypto/octeon-sha256.c
>> arch/x86/purgatory/purgatory.c
>> arch/s390/crypto/sha256_s390.c
>> arch/s390/purgatory/purgatory.c
>>
>> (in case you do not know ack is a smarter grep, which skips .o files, etc.)
> 
> You need to match at word boundaries to avoid matching on ${foo}_sha256_init().
> So it's actually a somewhat shorter list:
> 
> $ git grep -l -E '\<sha(224|256)_(init|update|final)\>'
> arch/arm/crypto/sha256_glue.c
> arch/arm/crypto/sha256_neon_glue.c
> arch/arm64/crypto/sha256-glue.c
> arch/s390/crypto/sha256_s390.c
> arch/s390/purgatory/purgatory.c
> arch/x86/crypto/sha256_ssse3_glue.c
> arch/x86/purgatory/purgatory.c
> crypto/sha256_generic.c
> drivers/crypto/ccree/cc_hash.c
> drivers/crypto/chelsio/chcr_algo.h
> drivers/crypto/n2_core.c
> include/linux/sha256.h
> lib/sha256.c
> 
> 5 of these are already edited by this patchset, so that leaves only 8 files.

Good point.

>> All these do include crypto/sha.h and putting the stuff which is in what
>> was linux/sha256.h into crypto/sha.h leads to name collisions which causes
>> more churn then I would like this series to cause.
>>
>> I guess we could do a cleanup afterwards, with one patch per file above
>> to fix the name collision issue, and then merge the 2 headers. I do not
>> want to do that for this series, as I want to keep this series as KISS
>> as possible since it is messing with somewhat sensitive stuff.
>>
>> And TBH I even wonder if a follow-up series is worth the churn...
>>
> 
> I think it should be done; the same was done when introducing the AES library.
> But I'm okay with it being done later, if you want to keep this patchset
> shorter.

I would prefer to do this later, so that we can focus on the basis
of merging the 2 implementations now.

I'm willing to commit to doing the cleanup once the base series has been merged.

Regards,

Hans