From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE51C04AB6 for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 04:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B860F208CB for ; Tue, 28 May 2019 04:58:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=chronox.de header.i=@chronox.de header.b="ZahgWAax" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726657AbfE1E6N (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 00:58:13 -0400 Received: from mo4-p02-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.84]:27711 "EHLO mo4-p02-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726693AbfE1E6N (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 May 2019 00:58:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1559019489; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=chronox.de; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=ATZN/qb53ILeRnmNIzRjCTveWwU5gx2KnqlEdNal0Cc=; b=ZahgWAaxGaPjrBufkEKCYYfN9W2RAVPO0cyY0peBcZc7EJVLHrZNHyBax+Y18+4lv+ IeUsIoDttYZAu4D5R2KkPueZ4xy0+E9xCrucEmFYXqxFPdL8XJFJJ2gPZdcEPGgcmi4w xjzL0I+3RIK0wp+XqzCMOjM/Bv4KnsJ1fduK5XK+uYkYoIYJtl9kCxRzovYN8zVZ/KDT qyu2X56nXkSG5heGoscFTb/3UQgDmZ6/MxEx9HfHtaK3zU9XllH7rAIeCtHuS629KgHY V+WqM91TDHIIYR+w7laQnEnQx/1VYlhibQ79gNDGg4JkC0866Oqg8+41hnUxoDfor6uw hJUw== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P2ERcEykfu11Y98lp/T7+hdri+uKZK8TKWEqNyiHySGSa9k9xmwdNnzGHXPaJvSfTerW" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from tauon.chronox.de by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 44.18 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id R0373fv4S4w1kss (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate); Tue, 28 May 2019 06:58:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Stephan Mueller To: Eric Biggers Cc: Nikolay Borisov , herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, davem@davemloft.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, terrelln@fb.com, jthumshirn@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: xxhash - Implement xxhash support Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 06:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: <1778879.ZR4uXBBfnJ@tauon.chronox.de> In-Reply-To: <20190527191550.GC9394@sol.localdomain> References: <20190527142810.31472-1-nborisov@suse.com> <1582734.iyJbpUVI2p@tauon.chronox.de> <20190527191550.GC9394@sol.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 27. Mai 2019, 21:15:51 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers: Hi Eric, > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:06:53PM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO_JITTERENTROPY) += jitterentropy_rng.o > > > CFLAGS_jitterentropy.o = -O0 > > > jitterentropy_rng-y := jitterentropy.o jitterentropy-kcapi.o > > > > > > diff --git a/crypto/testmgr.c b/crypto/testmgr.c > > > index 8386038d67c7..322e906b6b6a 100644 > > > --- a/crypto/testmgr.c > > > +++ b/crypto/testmgr.c > > > @@ -3879,6 +3879,13 @@ static const struct alg_test_desc > > > alg_test_descs[] = > > > { .alg = "xts512(paes)", > > > > > > .test = alg_test_null, > > > .fips_allowed = 1, > > > > > > + }, { > > > + .alg = "xxhash64", > > > + .test = alg_test_hash, > > > + .fips_allowed = 1, > > > > Why is this intended to be allowed in FIPS mode? This does not seem to be > > a > > FIPS approved cipher. > > The other non-cryptographic algorithms like crc32, crc32c, crct10dif, zstd, > zlib-deflate, lzo, lzohc have the fips_allowed flag set too, the argument > being the FIPS restrictions don't apply to non-cryptographic algorithms. > I'm not very familiar with FIPS, but I'd assume the same would be true for > xxhash. FIPS relates to cryptographic mechanisms protecting user data. The mechanisms you refer to are non-cryptographic and thus do not fall under FIPS-"jurisdiction". Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I see, however, xxhash seems to be a cryptographic hash function. Ciao Stephan