netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bpf: rework prog_digest into prog

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: <20170113233441.GA67532@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:34:43 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bpf: rework prog_digest into prog_tag

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 03:16:44PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> > Commit 7bd509e311f4 ("bpf: add prog_digest and expose it via
> > fdinfo/netlink") was recently discussed, partially due to
> > admittedly suboptimal name of "prog_digest" in combination
> > with sha1 hash usage, thus inevitably and rightfully concerns
> > about its security in terms of collision resistance were
> > raised with regards to use-cases.
> >
> 
> Seems reasonable.  My only question is whether you'd still want to
> switch to SHA-256 just from a code cleanliness perspective.  With
> SHA-256 you can use the easy streaming API I wrote, but with SHA-1
> you're still stuck with the crappy API in lib/, and I'm not
> volunteering to fix up the SHA-1 API.

No. As was stated many times before there are only negatives
in switching to sha256.