linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] crypto: sha256 - remove duplicate generic hash init function

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:   Thu, 23 Dec 2021 09:35:21 +1100
From:   Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] crypto: sha256 - remove duplicate generic hash init function

Hi Tianjia,

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:25 PM Tianjia Zhang
<tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> crypto_sha256_init() and sha256_base_init() are the same repeated
> implementations, remove the crypto_sha256_init() in generic
> implementation, sha224 is the same process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>  crypto/sha256_generic.c | 16 ++--------------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/crypto/sha256_generic.c b/crypto/sha256_generic.c
> index 3b377197236e..bf147b01e313 100644
> --- a/crypto/sha256_generic.c
> +++ b/crypto/sha256_generic.c
> @@ -72,7 +60,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(crypto_sha256_finup);
>
>  static struct shash_alg sha256_algs[2] = { {
>         .digestsize     =       SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE,
> -       .init           =       crypto_sha256_init,
> +       .init           =       sha256_base_init,
>         .update         =       crypto_sha256_update,
>         .final          =       crypto_sha256_final,
>         .finup          =       crypto_sha256_finup,
> @@ -86,7 +74,7 @@ static struct shash_alg sha256_algs[2] = { {
>         }
>  }, {
>         .digestsize     =       SHA224_DIGEST_SIZE,
> -       .init           =       crypto_sha224_init,
> +       .init           =       sha224_base_init,
>         .update         =       crypto_sha256_update,
>         .final          =       crypto_sha256_final,
>         .finup          =       crypto_sha256_finup,

Aren't these two functions defined as static inline functions? It
appears that these crypto_ wrappers were added so there's "actual"
referenceable functions for these structs.

Did this actually compile?

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@...il.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/