Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        davem@davemloft.net, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, terrelln@fb.com,
        jthumshirn@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: xxhash - Implement xxhash support
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 06:58:00 +0200
Message-ID: <1778879.ZR4uXBBfnJ@tauon.chronox.de>
In-Reply-To: <20190527191550.GC9394@sol.localdomain>
References: <20190527142810.31472-1-nborisov@suse.com> <1582734.iyJbpUVI2p@tauon.chronox.de> <20190527191550.GC9394@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Am Montag, 27. Mai 2019, 21:15:51 CEST schrieb Eric Biggers:

Hi Eric,

> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:06:53PM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO_JITTERENTROPY) += jitterentropy_rng.o
> > >  CFLAGS_jitterentropy.o = -O0
> > >  jitterentropy_rng-y := jitterentropy.o jitterentropy-kcapi.o
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/crypto/testmgr.c b/crypto/testmgr.c
> > > index 8386038d67c7..322e906b6b6a 100644
> > > --- a/crypto/testmgr.c
> > > +++ b/crypto/testmgr.c
> > > @@ -3879,6 +3879,13 @@ static const struct alg_test_desc
> > > alg_test_descs[] =
> > > { .alg = "xts512(paes)",
> > > 
> > >  		.test = alg_test_null,
> > >  		.fips_allowed = 1,
> > > 
> > > +	}, {
> > > +		.alg = "xxhash64",
> > > +		.test = alg_test_hash,
> > > +		.fips_allowed = 1,
> > 
> > Why is this intended to be allowed in FIPS mode? This does not seem to be
> > a
> > FIPS approved cipher.
> 
> The other non-cryptographic algorithms like crc32, crc32c, crct10dif, zstd,
> zlib-deflate, lzo, lzohc have the fips_allowed flag set too, the argument
> being the FIPS restrictions don't apply to non-cryptographic algorithms. 
> I'm not very familiar with FIPS, but I'd assume the same would be true for
> xxhash.

FIPS relates to cryptographic mechanisms protecting user data. The mechanisms 
you refer to are non-cryptographic and thus do not fall under 
FIPS-"jurisdiction".

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I see, however, xxhash seems to 
be a cryptographic hash function.

Ciao
Stephan