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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:27:22 +0100 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] bpf: move from sha1 to blake2s in tag calculation Hi Alexei, On 1/13/22, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote: > Nack. > It's part of api. We cannot change it. This is an RFC patchset, so there's no chance that it'll actually be applied as-is, and hence there's no need for the strong hammer nack. The point of "request for comments" is comments. Specifically here, I'm searching for information on the ins and outs of *why* it might be hard to change. How does userspace use this? Why must this 64-bit number be unchanged? Why did you do things this way originally? Etc. If you could provide a bit of background, we might be able to shake out a solution somewhere in there. Thanks, Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists