netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] zinc: Introduce minimal cryptography library

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: <CAHmME9pt3PxKQmc8E-arA-W0p2tp9z_oJ-uXQwis3qD=Zvpnsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 4 Aug 2018 00:10:01 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        "Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>,
        Tanja Lange <tanja@...erelliptic.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Karthikeyan Bhargavan <karthik.bhargavan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] zinc: Introduce minimal cryptography library

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:29 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> Gotcha.  That was very hidden in the 24k lines.  Please make this (and
> any similar goodies) be their own patches.

I know, sorry, and I certainly will have this split out. The above
code snippet was from the much much shorter WireGuard patch (3/3), but
indeed the simd_get/put/relax code is in the monster patch here, so
that'll certainly be split for v2.

>
> Also, please consider spelling it differently:
>
> simd_context_t simd_context = simd_get();
>
> Because we'll feel very silly the first time some architecture has
> more than one possible state.  (It wouldn't be entirely insane for x86
> to distinguish between "no SIMD", "XMM only", and "go to town!", for
> example.)

That's a great idea. It'll also make it clearer that users shouldn't
just dump a raw "true" in there; raw bools are more tempting to abuse
like that.