[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9ork6wh-T=sRfX6X0B4j-Vb36GVO0v=Yda0Hac1hiN_KA@mail.gmail.com>
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