Eric Biggers wrote:
> sounds very generic and important, like it's the
> header to include if you're doing cryptographic hashing in the kernel.
> But actually it only includes the library implementation of the SHA-1
> compression function (not even the full SHA-1). This should basically
> never
On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 03:05:46PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Thanks for this series. I like the general idea. I think it might make
> sense, though, to separate things out into sha1.h and sha256.h. That
> will be nice preparation work for when we eventually move obsolete
> primitives into
On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 20:28, Eric Biggers wrote:
>
> sounds very generic and important, like it's the
> header to include if you're doing cryptographic hashing in the kernel.
> But actually it only includes the library implementation of the SHA-1
> compression function (not even the full SHA-1).
Thanks for this series. I like the general idea. I think it might make
sense, though, to separate things out into sha1.h and sha256.h. That
will be nice preparation work for when we eventually move obsolete
primitives into some subdirectory.
sounds very generic and important, like it's the
header to include if you're doing cryptographic hashing in the kernel.
But actually it only includes the library implementation of the SHA-1
compression function (not even the full SHA-1). This should basically
never be used anymore; SHA-1 is no lo
