From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0] Add SHA-3 hash algorithm
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:29:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515CC97F.5020200@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121003054542.GA2416@havoc.gtf.org>
On 10/03/2012 01:45 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Whee -- SHA-3 is out! I wanted to explore the new toy a bit, and
> so, here is a blatantly untested rough draft of SHA-3 kernel support.
>
> Why rough draft? Because answers to the questions below will inform a
> more polished version.
Just to update people... this has been in a holding pattern, because
apparently there are revisions to SHA-3 coming down the pipe. They want
to address preimage resistance, and make things faster in hardware.
Random quote from NIST, on the NIST hash-forum, which doesn't provide
detail but does summarize general feeling: "As best we can tell,
continuing to pay that performance penalty for all future uses of SHA3
has no benefit. (All this is a longwinded way of saying: we were wrong,
but hopefully we got better.)"
Jeff
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0] Add SHA-3 hash algorithm
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:29:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515CC97F.5020200@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121003054542.GA2416@havoc.gtf.org>
On 10/03/2012 01:45 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Whee -- SHA-3 is out! I wanted to explore the new toy a bit, and
> so, here is a blatantly untested rough draft of SHA-3 kernel support.
>
> Why rough draft? Because answers to the questions below will inform a
> more polished version.
Just to update people... this has been in a holding pattern, because
apparently there are revisions to SHA-3 coming down the pipe. They want
to address preimage resistance, and make things faster in hardware.
Random quote from NIST, on the NIST hash-forum, which doesn't provide
detail but does summarize general feeling: "As best we can tell,
continuing to pay that performance penalty for all future uses of SHA3
has no benefit. (All this is a longwinded way of saying: we were wrong,
but hopefully we got better.)"
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-04 0:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-03 5:45 [PATCH v0] Add SHA-3 hash algorithm Jeff Garzik
2012-10-03 5:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-10-03 6:06 ` David Miller
2012-10-03 6:06 ` David Miller
2012-10-03 6:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-10-03 6:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-10-03 7:11 ` Herbert Xu
2012-10-03 7:11 ` Herbert Xu
2012-10-03 7:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2012-10-03 7:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-04-04 0:29 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2013-04-04 0:29 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=515CC97F.5020200@pobox.com \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.