Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:00:06 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [Feature Request] SHA-1 HMAC On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:36:12AM -0600, Kyle Sanderson wrote: > Forgive my ignorance, but would it be possible to include SHA-1 HMAC into > musl? I'm not really sure if there's a list of functionality that's > prohibited from a libc; hopefully this is an acceptable request. I have a > single HMAC key that I use to sign multiple hashes with. I'm using > PolarSSL's implementation at the moment and I'd like to eliminate the > requirement. Hi. The conditions for something to go into libc are pretty stringent; otherwise, it would be called libeverything. :-) - Anything mandated by the current version of one of the relevant standards (ISO C or POSIX) goes in without question. - Things with major historical precedent or presence in obsolete standards are pretty sure to get included unless there's a strong reason against inclusion. - Modern BSD or GNU extensions that are widely used and not unreasonably costly to add generally get included. It sounds like what you're asking for is the addition of a new interface with no existing precedent, in which case, libc is really not the appropriate place for it. However, I think you can implement SHA-1 in just a few lines of code and include it with your project rather than depending on large libraries. Busybox has a very light, simple implementation you could copy; it's under GPLv2, but the code is by Rob Landley and I imagine he would relicense it under BSD/MIT for you if you need a less restrictive license. The original code it was based on was public domain, so you could also just go back to that. See libbb/hash_md5_sha.c in the Busybox source for details. Rich
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.