Martin Nowak wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:43:48 +0200, Piotr Szturmaj
<[email protected]> wrote:
Martin Nowak wrote:
I have to say though that I like the current struct based interface
much better.
struct Hash
{
// enhanced by some compile time traits
enum hashLength = 16;
enum blockLength = 0;
The reason why hash and block length are runtime variables is that
some hash functions are parametrized with variables of great
amplitude, for example CubeHash may have any number of rounds, and any
size of block and hash output.
// three interface functions
void start();
void update(const(ubyte)[] data);
void finish(ref ubyte[hashLength] digest);
}
There, it is:
reset();
put();
finish();
Reset does two different things depending on the internal state. Not so
good.
I think that's negligible, but it may be "unbranched" easily.
The put() function makes hash implementation an OutputRange.
You wouldn't need the save, restore functions.
They're not needed. They only serve as speed optimization when hashing
many messages which have the same beginning block. This is used in
HMAC, which is:
HMAC(func, key, message) = func(key ^ opad, func(key ^ ipad, message));
when func supports saving the IV, the first parts are precomputed,
when not HMAC resorts to full hashing. This optimization is also
mentioned in HMAC spec.
If hash contexts were value type you could simply do.
auto saved = hash_ctx;
Or alternatively one could add a 'save()' function to an isSaveableHash(H)
concept.
Yes, I thought about that, but current way is faster because only
initialization vector is saved, and api name emphasises it. General
save() on SHA512 would need to copy IV and 80 ulongs (internal state).
Some unnecessary allocations could go away.
Most important instances would have less mutable state.
Could you specify which ones, please?
Basically every 'new' in std.hash.crypto.base but especially the ones in
hash(T) and hashToHex(T).
Yes, this will be fixed.
You could probably parameterize a Merkle Damgård base with free
functions for the transformation.
What would be the difference from current class parametrization?
Just wanted to point out a specific alternative if code reuse is of a
concern.
If not using classes you need a way to inject the transformation which
could
be done like.
alias MerkleDamgard!(uint, 5, 80, 16, 20, sha1Transform) SHA1;
Either way this function must be written. Either as free function or as
class method. I don't think someone would use transformation function
directly.
A dynamic interface can be obtaines by templated instances similar to
what std.range does.
Could you elaborate? I don't know exactly what do you mean. Function
templates?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_range.html#InputRange
DynamicAllocatorTemplate at
https://github.com/dsimcha/TempAlloc/blob/master/std/allocators/allocator.d
These are to support cases where you either want a stable ABI or
have a template firewall for scalability issues (e.g. could be sensible
for the HMAC implementation although not really necessary).
I will look into it. Thanks!
