[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 08:53:54 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: BPF hash algo (Re: Re: [PATCH v7 3/6] random:
use SipHash in place of MD5)
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I don't know what your design requirements are for this. It looks like
> you're generating some kind of crypto digest of a program, and you
> need to avoid collisions. If you'd like to go with a PRF (keyed hash
> function) that uses some kernel secret key, then I'd strongly suggest
> using Keyed-Blake2. Alternatively, if you need for userspace to be
> able to calculate the same hash, and don't want to use some kernel
> secret, then I'd still suggest using Blake2, which will be fast and
> secure.
>
> If you can wait until January, I'll work on a commit adding the
> primitive to the tree. I've already written it and I just need to get
> things cleaned up.
>
>> Blake2 is both less stable (didn't they slightly change it recently?)
>
> No, Blake2 is very stable. It's also extremely secure and has been
> extensively studied. Not to mention it's faster than SHA2. And if you
> want to use it as a PRF, it's obvious better suited and faster to use
> Blake2's keyed PRF mode than HMAC-SHA2.
>
> If you don't care about performance, and you don't want to use a PRF,
> then just use SHA2-256. If you're particularly concerned about certain
> types of attacks, you could go with SHA2-512 truncated to 256 bytes,
> but somehow I doubt you need this.
I don't think this cares about performance. (Well, it cares about
performance, but the verifier will likely dominiate the cost by such a
large margin that the hash algo doesn't matter.) And staying
FIPS-compliant-ish is worth a little bit, so I'd advocate for
something in the SHA2 family.
> If userspace hasn't landed, can we get away with changing this code
> after 4.10? Or should we just fix it before 4.10? Or should we revert
> it before 4.10? Development-policy-things like this I have zero clue
> about, so I heed to your guidance.
I think it should be fixed or reverted before 4.10.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
