Hi Jason,
CC bpf, netdev
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:28 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:38 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Unfortunately we cannot get rid of the sha1 code yet (lib/sha1.o is
> > built-in unconditionally), as there are other users...
kernel/bpf/core.c and net/ipv6/addrconf.c
Could they be switched to blake2s, too?
> I think that's just how things go and a price for progress. We're not
> going to stick with sha1, and blake2s has some nice properties that we
> certainly want. In the future hopefully this can decrease in other
> ways based on other future improvements. But that's where we are now.
>
> If you're really quite concerned about m68k code size, I can probably
> do some things to reduce that. For example, blake2s256_hmac is only
> used by wireguard and it could probably be made local there. And with
> some trivial loop re-rolling, I can shave off another 2300 bytes. And
> I bet I can find a few other things too. The question is: how
> important is this to you?
No problem, I just try to report all measurable impact on kernel size,
so there is some record of it.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
