Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:01:19 -0400 | From | Jean-Luc Cooke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |