Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:23:48 -0400 | From | Theodore Ts'o <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional? |
| |
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 06:55:01PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > I posted a proof of concept patch for discussion on $SUBJECT. In that > patch, I removed the folding for the purposes of having a reasonable > comparison between cryptoapi and native. Cryptoapi does FIPS-180-1 and > thus does twice as much hashing on 512 bits.
It would be nice if there was a Crypto API algorithm variant which didn't do the FIPS-180-1 padding, for those applications (like /dev/random) that don't need it.
> Removing the folding was a convenient and obvious way of addressing > it for the purposes of discussing $SUBECT until a good way to work > around the extra padding was found. I've already indicated my > willingness to accept your > SHA-may-be-backdoored-and-somehow-leverageable argument, so can we > kindly discuss $SUBJECT instead of this trivia?
Multiple arguments were made for dropping the folding, not just as a "temporary measure". You were the one that made the excuse of "cat /dev/urandom > /dev/hda1", not me...
> As for "screwing with /dev/random", it's got rather more serious and > longstanding problems than speed that I've been addressing. For > instance, I'm pretty sure there was never a time when entropy > accounting wasn't racy let alone wrong, SMP or no (fixed in -mm, thank > you). Nor has there ever been a time when change_poolsize() wasn't an > oops waiting to happen (patch queued for resend).
Agreed, fixing the locking is much more important than CryptoAPI changes. Can you send me a pointer to your latest locking patches? I'd like to look them over. Thanks!!
- Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |