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:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:33:44 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>,
        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

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 5:14 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> wrote:
> [ adding the bpf list - please make sure to include that when sending
>   BPF-related patches, not everyone in BPF land follows netdev ]
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" <> writes:
> > BLAKE2s is faster and more secure. SHA-1 has been broken for a long time
> > now. This also removes quite a bit of code, and lets us potentially
> > remove sha1 from lib, which would further reduce vmlinux size.
> AFAIU, the BPF tag is just used as an opaque (i.e., arbitrary) unique
> identifier for BPF programs, without any guarantees of stability. Which
> means changing it should be fine; at most we'd confuse some operators
> who have memorised the tags of their BPF programs :)
> The only other concern I could see would be if it somehow locked us into
> that particular algorithm for other future use cases for computing
> hashes of BPF programs (say, signing if that ends up being the direction
> we go in). But obviously SHA1 would not be a good fit for that anyway,
> so the algorithm choice would have to be part of that discussion in any
> case.
> So all in all, I don't see any issues with making this change for BPF.

It's part of api. We cannot change it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists