[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qNcsXtdWO_rmngSXXeBsTbA9B_33oLJ_pWOWcO7P2JZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 00:17:18 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>, "Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function
Hey Tom,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
> I'm confused, doesn't 2dword == 1qword? Anyway, I think the qword
> functions are good enough. If someone needs to hash over some odd
> length they can either put them in a structure padded to 64 bits or
> call the hash function that takes a byte length.
Yes. Here's an example:
static inline u64 siphash24_2dwords(const u32 a, const u32 b, const u8
key[SIPHASH24_KEY_LEN])
{
return siphash24_1qword(((u64)b << 32) | a, key);
}
This winds up being extremely useful and syntactically convenient in a
few places. Check out my git branch in about 10 minutes or wait for v4
to be posted tomorrow; these are nice helpers.
> I'd still drop the "24" unless you really think we're going to have
> multiple variants coming into the kernel.
Okay. I don't have a problem with this, unless anybody has some reason
to the contrary.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
