linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] crypto: Fix sha1 compile error

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: <20250614045323.GF1284@sol>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 21:53:23 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Yuzhuo Jing <yuzhuo@...gle.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] crypto: Fix sha1 compile error

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 05:08:26PM -0700, Yuzhuo Jing wrote:
> This is a followup patch series for an ongoing patch series to reuse
> kernel tree sha1 utils in perf tools and remove libcrypto dependency.
> This mirrors the fixes made in perf back to the kernel tree so we can
> use tools/perf/check-headers.sh to monitor future changes.
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aC9lXhPFcs5fkHWH@x1/t/#u
> 
> This series contains two patches: one fixing signed and unsigned integer
> comparisons and another fixing function type mismatches.
> 
> Yuzhuo Jing (2):
>   crypto: Fix sha1 signed integer comparison compile error
>   crypto: Fix sha1 signed pointer comparison compile error
> 
>  crypto/sha1_generic.c      | 2 +-
>  include/crypto/sha1_base.h | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

I don't like these signedness inconsistencies in the code either, and I'll be
fixing these (among many other issues) when I refactor SHA-1 to have a proper
lib/crypto/ API similar to what I'm currently doing with SHA-2.  That being
said, the kernel doesn't have these warnings enabled, and especially in its
current state this code isn't really designed to be copied into a userspace
program.

So I feel that the premise of this patchset, and more importantly also the one
you linked to above for tools/perf/, is a bit misguided.

I've sent an alternative patchset for you to consider:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250614044133.660848-1-ebiggers@kernel.org/.  It
adds a minimal SHA-1 implementation, including a test, to tools/perf/util/.  The
SHA-1 implementation is less than 100 lines anyway.

The effort it would take to "share" the kernel's code here is just not worth it,
IMO.  Especially when I have some significant refactoring planned on the kernel
side which would make the tools/perf copy diverge anyway.

- Eric