Thanks for the patch. Comments are inline below.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:13 PM Dominik Brodowski
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> drivers/char/random.c | 10 +++++++---
> include/crypto/chacha.h | 15 +++++++++++----
For the next submission of this (which you can do standalone and call
a v2), please Cc linux-crypto and Herbert as part of the commit body.
I still intend to take this through the random tree, since that's the
purpose of it, but because it touches the lib/crypto code, they should
be in the loop.
> static struct crng_state primary_crng = {
> .lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(primary_crng.lock),
> + .state[0] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_EXPA, /* "expa" */
> + .state[1] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_ND_3, /* "nd 3" */
> + .state[2] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_2_BY, /* "2-by" */
> + .state[3] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_TE_K, /* "te k" */
> };
I don't think you need the comments here, since the constant is
already descriptive.
>
> /*
> @@ -823,9 +827,9 @@ static void __maybe_unused crng_initialize_secondary(struct crng_state *crng)
> crng->init_time = jiffies - CRNG_RESEED_INTERVAL - 1;
> }
>
> -static void __init crng_initialize_primary(struct crng_state *crng)
> +static void __init crng_initialize_primary(void)
> {
> + struct crng_state *crng = &primary_crng;
> - crng_initialize_primary(&primary_crng);
> + crng_initialize_primary();
There are a bunch of places where we're passing around globals when we
could collapse them down. It probably makes sense to do that in a
separate cleanup series (please feel free!), rather than here, since
the init-time constants issue doesn't really change anything with
regards to this function signature.
> static inline void chacha_init_consts(u32 *state)
> {
> - state[0] = 0x61707865; /* "expa" */
> - state[1] = 0x3320646e; /* "nd 3" */
> - state[2] = 0x79622d32; /* "2-by" */
> - state[3] = 0x6b206574; /* "te k" */
> + state[0] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_EXPA; /* "expa" */
> + state[1] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_ND_3; /* "nd 3" */
> + state[2] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_2_BY; /* "2-by" */
> + state[3] = CHACHA_CONSTANT_TE_K; /* "te k" */
> }
I don't think you need the comments here, since the constant is
already descriptive.
