On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > I'd still drop the "24" unless you really think we're going to have > > multiple variants coming into the kernel. > > Okay. I don't have a problem with this, unless anybody has some reason > to the contrary.
What if the 2/4-round version falls and we need more rounds to withstand future cryptoanalysis? We'd then have siphash_ and siphash48_ functions, no? My amateurish bike-shedding argument would be "let's keep the 24 then" :-) C. -- BOFH excuse #354: Chewing gum on /dev/sd3c
