[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 14:38:05 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [Feature Request] SHA-1 HMAC
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:28:48PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Daniel Cegie?ka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> [2013-10-25 21:23:03 +0200]:
> > Adding HMAC to musl doesn't make sense. This is only one C file, so
> > why you just don't want to keep this in the sources of your software?
>
> including a source file is not optimal
I think whether this is the case depends a lot on what you're doing.
One question I always recommend asking is which will be larger and
more work to maintain: the copied code, or the library glue? For use
of a single hash function from a crypto lib with a complex API, just
the glue code to setup and call the crypto lib is probably as large as
the hash code. Then you have to consider also the build system. At
this point we haven't even started considering the potential space for
bugs, issues if someone uses a different implementation of the
original crypto lib as a drop-in replacement for it (common with
openssl), etc.
So I think in this specific case, including the source file may
actually be the optimal solution.
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.
