On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 22:38, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 19-08-19 17:08, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 17:24, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Here is v2 of my patch series refactoring the current 2 separate SHA256 > >> C implementations into 1 and put it into a separate library. > >> > >> There are 3 reasons for this: > >> > >> 1) Remove the code duplication of having 2 separate implementations > >> > >> 2) Offer a separate library SHA256 implementation which can be used > >> without having to call crypto_alloc_shash first. This is especially > >> useful for use during early boot when crypto_alloc_shash does not > >> work yet. > >> > >> 3) Having the purgatory code using the same code as the crypto subsys means > >> that the purgratory code will be tested by the crypto subsys selftests. > >> > >> This has been tested on x86, including checking that kecec still works. > >> > >> This has NOT been tested on s390, if someone with access to s390 can > >> test that things still build with this series applied and that > >> kexec still works, that would be great. > >> > >> Changes in v2: > >> - Use put_unaligned_be32 to store the hash to allow callers to use an > >> unaligned buffer for storing the hash > >> - Add a comment to include/crypto/sha256.h explaining that these functions > >> now may be used outside of the purgatory too (and that using the crypto > >> API instead is preferred) > >> - Add sha224 support to the lib/crypto/sha256 library code > >> - Make crypto/sha256_generic.c not only use sha256_transform from > >> lib/crypto/sha256.c but also switch it to using sha256_init, sha256_update > >> and sha256_final from there so that the crypto subsys selftests fully test > >> the lib/crypto/sha256.c implementation > >> > > > > This looks fine to me, although I agree with Eric's feedback regarding > > further cleanups. > > Ack, as I already told Eric I'm happy to do a follow up series with > the necessary local static function renames so that we can then merge > sha256.h into sha.h . > Yes, that would be excellent. > > Also, now that we have a C library, I'd like to drop > > the dependency of the mips and x86 sha256 algo implementations up > > sha256_generic.c, and use the library directly instead (so that > > sha256-generic is no longer needed on x86 or mips) > > I assume this is more of a generic remark and not targeted towards me? > Let's call it a general call for volunteers :-)
