Re: Question regarding the use of CRC32c for checksumming

Pedro Falcato
2023-08-04T21:09:56Z

On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 8:48 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
>

Hi folks, really sorry for the big delay, this thread really slipped my mind :)

> IMO the best API for CRC's is like zlib's where you pass in 0 to start the CRC
> and it does both the pre and post inversions for you. Note, "updates" still
> work as expected, since two inversions cancel each other out.

I agree, I did that when adding CRC32c to EFI. u32
calculate_crc32c(const void *buf, size_t len, u32 initial) with
inversions on initial and the result is pretty simple and effective.

> Unfortunately, many but not all of the CRC APIs in Linux decided to go with the
> other convention, which is to leave the inversions entirely to the caller.
>
> I think the kernel should also make the architecture-specific CRC
> implementations accessible directly via a library API, similar to what's done
> for Blake2s and ChaCha20. There should be no need to go through shash at all...
>
> >
> > This misuse could be fixed, but you'd have to burn an incompat flag to
> > do it. I'm less smart about crc32* than I was back in 2008, so I also
> > don't have the skills to figure out if the correction is worth the cost.
> >
> > --D
>
> No, it's not worth changing the ext4 on-disk format for this.

I don't think we'd need to change the on-disk format for this? Or for
any other hash algorithm change (as long as the resulting digest is
32-bit), right? Given we have s_checksum_type.
Or do existing tools dangerously assume CRC32c at the moment?

In any case, thank you both for the background on this, I'll try to
submit a patch to the docs to clarify this point.

--
Pedro