From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: libnettle/libhogweed WIP Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:23:29 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87pogbuhoe.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <83a89gq3us.fsf@gnu.org> <87bmtjiv0w.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <83o9xjn06c.fsf@gnu.org> <87shmeb5ln.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <83y3w5z1ez.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgr6yakj.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wpamww9k.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8337daggnj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1cdwxt6.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83tw5pg1q3.fsf@gnu.org> <87zifhulc2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h91og80k.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1492446235 24072 195.159.176.226 (17 Apr 2017 16:23:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:23:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 17 18:23:51 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d09RO-0006AK-0s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:23:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37723 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09RT-0003zG-Nh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:23:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51096) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09RN-0003yx-IL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:23:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09RK-0003H2-Dy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:23:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=33007 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d09RK-0003Gr-7Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:23:46 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d09RB-0005ut-S5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:23:37 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 39 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Cancel-Lock: sha1:qM3ARWGwn29qJAd8xSrGx3ZiKeo= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:214071 Archived-At: On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:25:13 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Ted Zlatanov >> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 22:39:57 -0400 >> >> Like I said, the first 150 lines of secure_hash() demonstrate the >> complexity. EZ> Most of that is encoding the text, which is not relevant to your EZ> functions. What's left is about 10 lines for a string and 30 for a EZ> buffer substring, not too much IMO. Why do you think the new functions don't need it? Either way I'll pull the code out into a shared function, but right now my patch assumes the input is always unibyte and in a Lisp string, and the return is always binary. secure_hash() does much better on both input and output, respecting coding systems and multibyte strings, and can produce binary or hex-encoded output. So I think all of that extra code is useful. On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:37:57 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: SM> I think we don't have the function that Ted wants. Basically, we'd SM> need to provide a `resize_string_data` function That seems pretty complicated. I'll leave the patch as is, doing an extra copy, and add a TODO referencing this potential function. Somewhat related--is there a sure way to wipe Lisp strings in C? I've done memset(SSDATA (storage), 0, storage_length); but maybe that's not ideal. Does the core allow C functions to say "GC this Lisp object right away and make sure it's wiped" or some subset of that? Thanks Ted