MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220112131204.800307-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20220112131204.800307-2-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <87tue8ftrm.fsf@toke.dk> <CAADnVQJqoHy+EQ-G5fUtkPpeHaA6YnqsOjjhUY6UW0v7eKSTZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9ork6wh-T=sRfX6X0B4j-Vb36GVO0v=Yda0Hac1hiN_KA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9ork6wh-T=sRfX6X0B4j-Vb36GVO0v=Yda0Hac1hiN_KA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jan 2022 14:45:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAADnVQLF_tmNmNk+H+jP1Ubmw-MBhG1FevFmtZY6yw5xk2314g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 1/3] bpf: move from sha1 to blake2s in tag calculation
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= <toke@redhat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@gmail.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:27 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On 1/13/22, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nack.
> > It's part of api. We cannot change it.
>
> This is an RFC patchset, so there's no chance that it'll actually be
> applied as-is, and hence there's no need for the strong hammer nack.
> The point of "request for comments" is comments. Specifically here,
> I'm searching for information on the ins and outs of *why* it might be
> hard to change. How does userspace use this? Why must this 64-bit
> number be unchanged? Why did you do things this way originally? Etc.
> If you could provide a bit of background, we might be able to shake
> out a solution somewhere in there.

There is no problem with the code and nothing to be fixed.