linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH 00/13] Architecture-optimized SHA-256 library API

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: <20250430023849.GA275186@sol.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:38:49 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	"Jason A . Donenfeld " <Jason@...c4.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 00/13] Architecture-optimized SHA-256 library API

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:27:15AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 09:57:49AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >
> > To be clear, the objections I have on your v2 patchset still hold.  Your
> > unsolicited changes to my patches add unnecessary complexity and redundancy,
> > make the crypto_shash API even harder to use correctly, and also break the build
> > for several architectures.  If you're going to again use your maintainer
> > privileges to push these out anyway over my objections, I'd appreciate it if you
> > at least made your dubious changes as incremental patches using your own
> > authorship so that they can be properly reviewed/blamed.
> 
> Well the main problem is that your patch introduces a regression
> in the shash sha256 code by making its export format differ from
> other shash sha256 implementations (e.g., padlock-sha).
> 
> So your first patch cannot stand as is.  What I could do is split up
> the first patch so that the lib/crypto sha stuff goes in by itself
> followed by a separate patch replacing the crypto/sha256 code.
> 
> > Please also note that I've sent a v4 which fixes the one real issue that my v1
> > patchset had: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250428170040.423825-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
> 
> Yes I've seen it but it still has the same issue of changing the
> shash sha256 export format.

Nothing requires that the export formats be consistent, but also the fact that
padlock-sha uses a weird format in the first place is an artificial problem that
you introduced just a couple weeks ago.  And even if we *must* use the same
format as padlock-sha, that can be done by using your crypto_sha256_export_lib
and crypto_sha256_import_lib, without all your other changes.

- Eric