Not trying to hijack this thread, but I studied in my security class that SHA1 is being attacked so to speak in terms of crypto analysis and it was suggested in the book that it not be used but something like SHA512 be used instead.

Just to give you all a heads up :)

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@linaro.org> wrote:

On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 14:16 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> These assembler implementations of SHA1 and AES have been
> in the upstream source tree since September 2012 but need
> to be selected explicitly in order to be enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf
> index 5c748a7..ba7b97b 100644
> --- a/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf
> +++ b/linaro/configs/linaro-base.conf
> @@ -86,3 +86,5 @@ CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS=y
> CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER=y
> CONFIG_ENABLE_DEFAULT_TRACERS=y
> CONFIG_PROC_DEVICETREE=y
> +CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_ARM=y
> +CONFIG_CRYPTO_SHA1_ARM=y

This also enables CONFIG_CRYPTO_SHA1 which we didn't already have
enabled in our builds, so I assume nothing actually needs this option.
If that's true, then it doesn't seem worth enabling an optimised version
of code which isn't going to be used. ;-)

--
Tixy

_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev

--
Jonathan Aquilina