netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 1/6] crypto/sha256: Refactor the API so it can be used without shash

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: <CAKv+Gu-NMNCEs61f4k7JSf9iSJ1A_Gy1r=kZRGqtbDsEDz7--Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:51:14 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 1/6] crypto/sha256: Refactor the API so it can be
 used without shash

On 26 December 2016 at 07:57, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 09:57:53AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> I actually do use incremental hashing later on.   BPF currently
>> vmallocs() a big temporary buffer just so it can fill it and hash it.
>> I change it to hash as it goes.
>
> How much data is this supposed to hash on average? If it's a large
> amount then perhaps using the existing crypto API would be a better
> option than adding this.
>

This is a good point actually: you didn't explain *why* BPF shouldn't
depend on the crypto API.