Fix how evercrypt hashing is called #1098
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
crypto_hash_fix@7603 aka 20200424.8 vs master ewma over 50 builds from 7250 to 7585 |
jumaffre
approved these changes
Apr 24, 2020
This was referenced Apr 28, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
evercrypt_sha256only worked for data sizes that were a multiple of 64, or less than 64. We missed this because our tests did not cover it, and our runtime hashing is all of 64-byte aligned data.This fixes that, based on the docs and some trial and error. I've also removed the
initializer_listfrom the constructor, since we only ever use a singleCBuffer. If we need to hash non-contiguous data in future, its possible but awkward with evercrypt (all but the last block must be 64-byte aligned, or we must copy). We can re-implement this slow path on demand.