From: Emanuele Cesena Subject: Status of shash Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:00:17 +0100 Message-ID: <1262106017.2726.27.camel@ec> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f225.google.com ([209.85.220.225]:64705 "EHLO mail-fx0-f225.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751906AbZL2RB3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:01:29 -0500 Received: by fxm25 with SMTP id 25so5388476fxm.21 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:01:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi all, I'd like to better understand the future plans for shash. Currently I can see that (please correct me if I'm wrong): - all the hash algorithms are migrated to shash - most of the kernel code uses the ahash API - still some pieces are using the hash API (e.g. IMA) I want to build a module on top of hash tfm API. What should I use? I guess ahash. In fact I don't need async, while I'd like export/import functions. So, can I already use shash? What about the (near) future? Is it better (for sync) to use hash, or to wait for shash [*], or to use ahash in any case? BTW, should IMA be converted to ahash? This could be a good exercise to start... Best, [*] I made some preliminary tests and shash gave me some problems. Further, looking at the code, it seems it is not yet completely implemented w.r.t. the tfm API. -- Emanuele Cesena Il corpo non ha ideali