netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] bpf: move from sha1 to blake2s in tag calculation

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]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 16:20:33 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        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>,
        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

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 4:08 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> Yeah, so the issue is that, at *some* point, SHA-1 is going to have to
> go. So it would be helpful if Alexei could clarify *why* he doesn't
> see this as a problem. The fact that it is broken means that it is no
> longer intractable to forge collisions, which likley means that SHA-1
> no longer fulfills the task that you wanted it to do in the first
> place.

I think the reason that Alexei doesn't think that the SHA-1 choice
really matters is because the result is being truncated to 64-bits, so
collisions are easy anyway, regardless of which hash function is
chosen (birthday bound and all). But from Geert's perspective, that
SHA-1 is still taking up precious bytes in m68k builds. And from my
perspective, it's poor form and clutters vmlinux, and plus, now I'm
curious about why this isn't using a more appropriately sized tag in
the first place.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 3:12 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> "checksum" -- the thing is only 64-bits, and as you told Andy Polyakov

Whoops, meant Lutomirski here. x86 Andy, not crypto Andy :)