Re: [PATCH]

From: Jean-Luc Cooke
Date: Fri Aug 06 2004 - 22:07:21 EST


On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 06:24:52PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 08:54:27AM -0400, Jean-Luc Cooke wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 12:42:38AM -0400, James Morris wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Jean-Luc Cooke wrote:
> > >
> > > > James,
> > > > Back to your question:
> > > > I want to replace the legacy MD5 and the incorrectly implemented SHA-1
> > > > implementations from driver/char/random.c
> > >
> > > Incorrectly implemented? Do you mean not appending the bit count?
> >
> > That and it's not endian-correct.
>
> Are you saying that it's hashing incorrectly or that the final form is
> not in the standard bit-order? For the purposes of a random number
> generator, the latter isn't terribly important. Nor is it particularly
> important for GUIDs.

The problems with the SHA1 implementation is the least of random.c's
concerns. But it's just bad taste to tell on-lookers "we use SHA-1" and you
actually don't. It causes people to re-evailuate your implementation.

Ease of reading, ease of analysis are related to using proper implementations
of cryptographic primitives.

> Last time I proposed a cryptoapi-based version, I couldn't get any
> buy-off on making cryptoapi a non-optional part of the kernel. Looking
> forward to your patch/paper.

I'll credit you for breaking the ice if capi becomes a standard feature. ;)

JLC
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/