Re: [PATCH 3/4] Makefile: allow specifying a SHA-1 for non-cryptographic uses

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:41:28PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > +endif
> > +endif
> > +endif
> > +endif
> > +
>
> What a cascade of `endif`s :)

Heh, indeed. These are copy/pasted from the hunk below this one, so
nothing new here.

> Do we also want to wire up support in config.mak.uname such that the
> fast variants are default-enabled? Or is there a good reason to not do
> that?

I thought that I might consider doing that in a separate series, if at
all. I would like have users opt-in to the new behavior rather than
imposing any change on them in this series.

> > diff --git a/hash.h b/hash.h
> > index f255e5c1e8a..450e579b405 100644
> > --- a/hash.h
> > +++ b/hash.h
> > @@ -15,6 +15,31 @@
> >  #include "block-sha1/sha1.h"
> >  #endif
> >
> > +#if defined(SHA1_APPLE_FAST)
> > +#include <CommonCrypto/CommonDigest.h>
> > +#define platform_SHA_CTX_fast CC_SHA1_CTX
> > +#define platform_SHA1_Init_fast CC_SHA1_Init
> > +#define platform_SHA1_Update_fast CC_SHA1_Update
> > +#define platform_SHA1_Final_fast CC_SHA1_Final
> > +#elif defined(SHA1_OPENSSL_FAST)
> > +#  include <openssl/sha.h>
> > +#  if defined(OPENSSL_API_LEVEL) && OPENSSL_API_LEVEL >= 3
> > +#    define SHA1_NEEDS_CLONE_HELPER_FAST
> > +#    include "sha1/openssl.h"
> > +#  endif
> > +#  define platform_SHA_CTX_fast openssl_SHA1_CTX
> > +#  define platform_SHA1_Init_fast openssl_SHA1_Init
> > +#  define platform_SHA1_Clone_fast openssl_SHA1_Clone
> > +#  define platform_SHA1_Update_fast openssl_SHA1_Update
> > +#  define platform_SHA1_Final_fast openssl_SHA1_Final
> > +#elif defined(SHA1_BLK_FAST)
> > +#include "block-sha1/sha1.h"
> > +#define platform_SHA_CTX_fast blk_SHA_CTX
> > +#define platform_SHA1_Init_fast blk_SHA1_Init
> > +#define platform_SHA1_Update_fast blk_SHA1_Update
> > +#define platform_SHA1_Final_fast blk_SHA1_Final
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  #if defined(SHA256_NETTLE)
> >  #include "sha256/nettle.h"
> >  #elif defined(SHA256_GCRYPT)
>
> Curiously, some of the nested statements here are indented whereas
> others aren't. We should aim to make that consistent.

Sure, this one was also copy/pasted from the block above, but I'll
adjust the new one accordingly.

Thanks,
Taylor