linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 03/26] lib/crypto: sha1: Add SHA-1 library functions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <IA4PR84MB4011819C07CD123FEDD4EC75AB55A@IA4PR84MB4011.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 15:05:16 +0000
From: "Elliott, Robert (Servers)" <elliott@....com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Ard
 Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sparclinux@...r.kernel.org"
	<sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 03/26] lib/crypto: sha1: Add SHA-1 library functions



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 6:23 PM
> Subject: [PATCH 03/26] lib/crypto: sha1: Add SHA-1 library functions
...
> +static void __maybe_unused sha1_blocks_generic(struct sha1_block_state
> *state,
> +					       const u8 *data, size_t nblocks)
> +{
> +	u32 workspace[SHA1_WORKSPACE_WORDS];
> +
> +	do {
> +		sha1_transform(state->h, data, workspace);
> +		data += SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE;
> +	} while (--nblocks);
> +
> +	memzero_explicit(workspace, sizeof(workspace));
> +}

That assumes the caller will never pass nblocks of 0... should that be
checked first?