From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17A7F288CC; Wed, 30 Apr 2025 02:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745980732; cv=none; b=eLNiRdbyTfb99q0uqNOyaoT6N/xE0dp5d0EWjYfEQF3sfyUD3w8+fUgW0MAtYHsVIQWd76uJ4m766QgVIHUVsm89ss/3sHNkdUuMgAKJu9Sj9OSqutaR72ferfp1U5odmdM4H9NsvPO3ZoCcFVZ6q6AIybNQliEkT8VMpNzteNI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745980732; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TxucFTFDsaAfXHIM/UmDu7tlSHNslTip/1/i68IYLNo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JaakxoSm2uxoeV8S5sxJwBjdn4drD2/zctq8L6wyUVPw1yCD2ojdxj7o4zWioL0btHC2lUc9rvFnPlT4ZAVkJLpz56c8b/0KPilMA6TOigX5r446h592kPleAKOahyMN8W2PBoY0GYq9cZR5Zum8ZRZ5q7ffU0NphhsKoeuAT6M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=rKbKJ7nI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="rKbKJ7nI" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05435C4CEE3; Wed, 30 Apr 2025 02:38:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1745980731; bh=TxucFTFDsaAfXHIM/UmDu7tlSHNslTip/1/i68IYLNo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=rKbKJ7nIpStk8OVO+UghSaA/PHyCumrXyBYGMhec+zz6zGnR725ui8YU/d2He5FZH l3ZysS7wQNq2XykORQq3s6X96GzzDVMLzqg6xRB5oJgw8D/zjnr70FZaqFzpxo/ux6 slCd0ewtZDB+TImi79ATUnbFJj1sgEXGWWW0acjg+O3tQjOUW+BcbpUUPzocAdj7Wk bf3XVBXfA5+WHNpc7JRkd7HigULuV18BqxGLAsXHYHc0FuMwOxf5OyajzjpK9zNSxR ZbplbfUya7mHSj39ujX+ycEmi0q7WWaUSaSesTjTADwli278a+F9qyBiH7pdqlnuWf klgtVgYRokWjQ== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:38:49 -0700 From: Eric Biggers To: Herbert Xu Cc: Linux Crypto Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel , "Jason A . Donenfeld " , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 00/13] Architecture-optimized SHA-256 library API Message-ID: <20250430023849.GA275186@sol.localdomain> References: <20250429165749.GC1743@sol.localdomain> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:27:15AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 09:57:49AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > To be clear, the objections I have on your v2 patchset still hold. Your > > unsolicited changes to my patches add unnecessary complexity and redundancy, > > make the crypto_shash API even harder to use correctly, and also break the build > > for several architectures. If you're going to again use your maintainer > > privileges to push these out anyway over my objections, I'd appreciate it if you > > at least made your dubious changes as incremental patches using your own > > authorship so that they can be properly reviewed/blamed. > > Well the main problem is that your patch introduces a regression > in the shash sha256 code by making its export format differ from > other shash sha256 implementations (e.g., padlock-sha). > > So your first patch cannot stand as is. What I could do is split up > the first patch so that the lib/crypto sha stuff goes in by itself > followed by a separate patch replacing the crypto/sha256 code. > > > Please also note that I've sent a v4 which fixes the one real issue that my v1 > > patchset had: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250428170040.423825-1-ebiggers@kernel.org > > Yes I've seen it but it still has the same issue of changing the > shash sha256 export format. Nothing requires that the export formats be consistent, but also the fact that padlock-sha uses a weird format in the first place is an artificial problem that you introduced just a couple weeks ago. And even if we *must* use the same format as padlock-sha, that can be done by using your crypto_sha256_export_lib and crypto_sha256_import_lib, without all your other changes. - Eric