linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] crypto: ecdsa - Rename keylen to bufsize where necessary

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: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 22:50:30 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>, <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
 <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <saulo.alessandre@....jus.br>,
 <lukas@...ner.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] crypto: ecdsa - Rename keylen to bufsize where
 necessary

On Fri Mar 1, 2024 at 10:47 PM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 3/1/24 15:41, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri Mar 1, 2024 at 4:20 AM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >> In some cases the name keylen does not reflect the purpose of the variable
> >> anymore once NIST P521 is used but it is the size of the buffer. There-
> >> for, rename keylen to bufsize where appropriate.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>   crypto/ecdsa.c | 12 ++++++------
> >>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/crypto/ecdsa.c b/crypto/ecdsa.c
> >> index 4daefb40c37a..4e847b59622a 100644
> >> --- a/crypto/ecdsa.c
> >> +++ b/crypto/ecdsa.c
> >> @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ struct ecdsa_signature_ctx {
> >>   static int ecdsa_get_signature_rs(u64 *dest, size_t hdrlen, unsigned char tag,
> >>   				  const void *value, size_t vlen, unsigned int ndigits)
> >>   {
> >> -	size_t keylen = ndigits * sizeof(u64);
> >> -	ssize_t diff = vlen - keylen;
> >> +	size_t bufsize = ndigits * sizeof(u64);
> > 
> > why not just "* 8"? using sizeof here makes this function only unreadable.
>
> 'unreadable' is a 'strong' word ...

so what is the gain when writing sizeof(u64)?

BR, Jarkko