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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:27:22 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>,
        Network Development <>,
        LKML <>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <>,
        Herbert Xu <>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <>,
        bpf <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] bpf: move from sha1 to blake2s in tag calculation

Hi Alexei,

On 1/13/22, Alexei Starovoitov <> 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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists